Wow, it has been over a month and a half since my last post. I'd first like to say that I am extremely sorry about that.
I finally finished my book. That is right, people! Finished! Done! Caput! It is actually available to the public and everything now. How should you get it, do you ask? Well, in six weeks it will be on the big book sites- Amazon.com, Barnes&Noble.com, Borders.com, and so on. Personally, I'd rather you get it through my publisher, Lulu.com! That way, you get it directly through my publisher and you don't need to put up with any of the big business crap.
This is just one of many books that I will be publishing in the coming years, some fiction, some non-fiction, all off of Lulu.com. Atleast two more creations will be put on that site, the next one being a fiction novel.
I am not quite sure if Lulu.com already made it available. If it has, then you can go buy it right now! If not, it will be up within two weeks.
Check it out here- http://www.lulu.com/content/963469 . And look for more updates- with the book out of the way, this blog will pick up! I promise!
Cheers,
Bob Wit
Monday, September 3, 2007
Thursday, July 12, 2007
The Intolerable Right
Oh kay, this is the type of thing that really gets under my skin.
This morning, a Hindu clergyman was to lead the Senate in their prayer. The Hindu, Rajan Zed, began to lead the prayer when a man got up inside the gallery and shouted. He yelled that allowing a Hindu to lead the prayer was an "abomination" and that there was only one true God.
He was arrested.
Zed began again, when, yet again, another interruption- this one in the form of two feminine voices, declaring the same Christian values of complete intolerance and the inability to accept something that is not their own. The Hindu clergyman seemed a bit taken aback, but did not get overwhelmed by the situation, and let the right people handle it.
They, too, were arrested.
This show of intolerance is an illustration of something that happens everyday. The people on the Christian right can not deal with diversity. The Hindu clergyman came, not only out of the kindness of his heart, but as a picture. The picture of the American People- the diversity we hold, and the acceptance that many of us have. The fact is that the Senate is, overwhelmingly, a place for Christians to run the country. But the fact is that having that Hindu come to say their prayer would show something great- these Christians would accept a Hindu's lead in prayer.
I don't really understand why we must have a prayer to open the Senate at all. But, if we must, what better than to have people of many different religions saying it? We have a huge fight in this country about whether the words "under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance. Shouldn't this be a bit of a bigger priority? Most religions have a God, or Gods, or a higher power, or something of that nature. But, ever since the Senate has opened, the opening prayer has long been monopolized by Christians. I think, to show the diversity of this great nation, we should have many people from various religions and various places in America to open the Senate.
But, as I said, this shows a much bigger problem in America than just who says the opening prayer in the Senate.
This shows the unwillingness of the religious right to accept something that is different from them. For a great example, look no further than the other House in Congress, the House of Representatives, where the first ever Muslim, Keith Ellison, is now serving his first term. One of his fellow Congressmen said something against Ellison's election, saying that the Muslims will soon take over. Come on!
I am so sick and tired of hearing about the right's attempts to demean other religions. But it happens. A lot. This is just a part of the ongoing assault against every religion that does not believe in the "Holy Trinity".
If we don't do something about this, it won't be the Muslims we will have to worry about. It will be the tyranny of the right, and the creation of a nonsecular state where, instead of the Constitution shaping our government, the Bible will.
This morning, a Hindu clergyman was to lead the Senate in their prayer. The Hindu, Rajan Zed, began to lead the prayer when a man got up inside the gallery and shouted. He yelled that allowing a Hindu to lead the prayer was an "abomination" and that there was only one true God.
He was arrested.
Zed began again, when, yet again, another interruption- this one in the form of two feminine voices, declaring the same Christian values of complete intolerance and the inability to accept something that is not their own. The Hindu clergyman seemed a bit taken aback, but did not get overwhelmed by the situation, and let the right people handle it.
They, too, were arrested.
This show of intolerance is an illustration of something that happens everyday. The people on the Christian right can not deal with diversity. The Hindu clergyman came, not only out of the kindness of his heart, but as a picture. The picture of the American People- the diversity we hold, and the acceptance that many of us have. The fact is that the Senate is, overwhelmingly, a place for Christians to run the country. But the fact is that having that Hindu come to say their prayer would show something great- these Christians would accept a Hindu's lead in prayer.
I don't really understand why we must have a prayer to open the Senate at all. But, if we must, what better than to have people of many different religions saying it? We have a huge fight in this country about whether the words "under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance. Shouldn't this be a bit of a bigger priority? Most religions have a God, or Gods, or a higher power, or something of that nature. But, ever since the Senate has opened, the opening prayer has long been monopolized by Christians. I think, to show the diversity of this great nation, we should have many people from various religions and various places in America to open the Senate.
But, as I said, this shows a much bigger problem in America than just who says the opening prayer in the Senate.
This shows the unwillingness of the religious right to accept something that is different from them. For a great example, look no further than the other House in Congress, the House of Representatives, where the first ever Muslim, Keith Ellison, is now serving his first term. One of his fellow Congressmen said something against Ellison's election, saying that the Muslims will soon take over. Come on!
I am so sick and tired of hearing about the right's attempts to demean other religions. But it happens. A lot. This is just a part of the ongoing assault against every religion that does not believe in the "Holy Trinity".
If we don't do something about this, it won't be the Muslims we will have to worry about. It will be the tyranny of the right, and the creation of a nonsecular state where, instead of the Constitution shaping our government, the Bible will.
Friday, July 6, 2007
Conflict
Criss Angel and David Blaine. Pepsi and Coca Cola. Verizon and Cingular.
I am oh kay with conflict- it is easy to cope with, when it is a competition between two up and coming magicians, or between drink companies, or between cellular companies. Humans are born that way- you must fight with your neighbor. It's a rat race, one that involves always being one up on the competition. Your neighbor gets that shiny new lawnmower, you get a ride-on. Your neighbor gets a Pontiac Solstice, you get the newest Jag. He gets a 60 inch flat screen television, you get the 62-er. It is human nature.
But what happens when the competition goes a little too far? What happens when the people who are supposed to be coinciding with each other, the ones that really need to, are the ones that fight more than anyone.
Yes, I am talking about our politicians.
Our politics have become so drenched in partisan values that it always seems to be a competition, with the losers ending up to be the American People. We should see our elections- House of Representatives, Senate, and Presidential- as a way to have an open discussion about the future of America. Either side should be coming to the table with their plan, and saying: "Oh kay, American People, this is what we got. Now, Mr. Opponent, let's talk about what we each have, and find a way to meet a central solution." Instead, we have opponent bashing. We have these two sides that have become so partisan that nothing gets done. There is a reason the Democrat-controlled Congress can't do anything- they can't stop fighting with the other side!
This is a huge problem in America. Elections and terms, which should be the times for debate, discussion, and revival, have become times of war between sides, and gloating for two years. That is all that happens in America- the winners gloat, the losers mourn, and while these people are doing whatever their respective sides must do, nothing gets done. Forget the War on Terror, we have a War For Power in America!
I don't understand this. I know that liberals get into the government and do things that go under the "liberal" label, and conservatives do the same. But we are a country where, and correct me if I am wrong, but where we can have an open discussion and have varying ideas. If both a liberal and a conservative gets elected to Congress, that should send the message that we have both liberal and conservative (and central) people living in this nation, and so ALL of their ideals should be taken into consideration. Meaning, during debates, yes, we should definitely stick to our beliefs, what we think is best, and all of that. But, once we have made all of that perfectly clear, we need to sit with the other side. In order for America to be ran as it SHOULD, we must pass bills that make both sides happy. It is not a difficult thing. Take parts of both of the arguments and incorporate them into a bill. There are one or two issues that I think would not be able to go under this ideal (namely, the War in Iraq and torture), but most of them can.
We are a nation that PRIDES itself in being diverse. "The Melting Pot". If we truly have pride in our differences, we need to focus on both arguments of the debate, and come to a solution that, while not filling in the gap we have between partisanships, atleast gives us a bridge to meet together.
Only then will America prosper and our Republic be achieved.
For our Democracy to be achieved? Well...that will take a little more than a change in mere partisan politics.
I am oh kay with conflict- it is easy to cope with, when it is a competition between two up and coming magicians, or between drink companies, or between cellular companies. Humans are born that way- you must fight with your neighbor. It's a rat race, one that involves always being one up on the competition. Your neighbor gets that shiny new lawnmower, you get a ride-on. Your neighbor gets a Pontiac Solstice, you get the newest Jag. He gets a 60 inch flat screen television, you get the 62-er. It is human nature.
But what happens when the competition goes a little too far? What happens when the people who are supposed to be coinciding with each other, the ones that really need to, are the ones that fight more than anyone.
Yes, I am talking about our politicians.
Our politics have become so drenched in partisan values that it always seems to be a competition, with the losers ending up to be the American People. We should see our elections- House of Representatives, Senate, and Presidential- as a way to have an open discussion about the future of America. Either side should be coming to the table with their plan, and saying: "Oh kay, American People, this is what we got. Now, Mr. Opponent, let's talk about what we each have, and find a way to meet a central solution." Instead, we have opponent bashing. We have these two sides that have become so partisan that nothing gets done. There is a reason the Democrat-controlled Congress can't do anything- they can't stop fighting with the other side!
This is a huge problem in America. Elections and terms, which should be the times for debate, discussion, and revival, have become times of war between sides, and gloating for two years. That is all that happens in America- the winners gloat, the losers mourn, and while these people are doing whatever their respective sides must do, nothing gets done. Forget the War on Terror, we have a War For Power in America!
I don't understand this. I know that liberals get into the government and do things that go under the "liberal" label, and conservatives do the same. But we are a country where, and correct me if I am wrong, but where we can have an open discussion and have varying ideas. If both a liberal and a conservative gets elected to Congress, that should send the message that we have both liberal and conservative (and central) people living in this nation, and so ALL of their ideals should be taken into consideration. Meaning, during debates, yes, we should definitely stick to our beliefs, what we think is best, and all of that. But, once we have made all of that perfectly clear, we need to sit with the other side. In order for America to be ran as it SHOULD, we must pass bills that make both sides happy. It is not a difficult thing. Take parts of both of the arguments and incorporate them into a bill. There are one or two issues that I think would not be able to go under this ideal (namely, the War in Iraq and torture), but most of them can.
We are a nation that PRIDES itself in being diverse. "The Melting Pot". If we truly have pride in our differences, we need to focus on both arguments of the debate, and come to a solution that, while not filling in the gap we have between partisanships, atleast gives us a bridge to meet together.
Only then will America prosper and our Republic be achieved.
For our Democracy to be achieved? Well...that will take a little more than a change in mere partisan politics.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Immigration
Oh kay, so now I have a big problem. Immigration.
First, a message to every single Representative of the American People that voted against the newest immigration bill: Listen, this bill was not amnesty. Amnesty would be sending them back to their country, wherever they came from, because they are allowed to get on with their lives without being punished. What this bill was doing was punishing them WHILE treating the problem. They were going to be fined, yet they were going to be able to stay here. It was going to forge a path to citizenship for them. This bill was a GOOD bill.
Why was this bill a good bill? Its easy. Whether or not you agree with immigrants coming into our countrey, the fact remains the same- they will get into America. Whether they do it legally or illegally, they will enter our country and live here. Here is the difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration: legal means we know who is here, illegal means we don't. Meaning, if we allow immigrants to gain citizenship easier, we will know who is in our country. If we don't allow them to gain citizenship, we will have no idea who is here.
We talk about fighting a War on Terror. We go to different nations and destroy them. We send our troops into rogue nations and allow them to die by the thousands. But, wouldn't it make sense, and I know I am only a kid and I don't have government experience, but wouldn't it make sense to make sure our HOMELAND is safe from terror before sending our troops to other nations? Wouldn't it make sense to make sure we don't have terrorists, and rapists, and gang members, and drug lords, coming into our country to terrorize our nation, and more importantly, our streets, before going and preserving other countries?
That is how you fight a "war on terror". You stop illegal immigration. You make sure you know who is coming through our borders. If we keep doing what we are doing (which is nothing), we will never have a remedy to the problem. We will never know who is going through our borders, so we will never know how many terrorists are getting through, our how many rapists are are entering our country.
Forget about Iran. Forget about North Korea. If you truly want to keep America safe, stop illegal immigration.
Unfortunately, our 'leaders' don't understand this idea.
First, a message to every single Representative of the American People that voted against the newest immigration bill: Listen, this bill was not amnesty. Amnesty would be sending them back to their country, wherever they came from, because they are allowed to get on with their lives without being punished. What this bill was doing was punishing them WHILE treating the problem. They were going to be fined, yet they were going to be able to stay here. It was going to forge a path to citizenship for them. This bill was a GOOD bill.
Why was this bill a good bill? Its easy. Whether or not you agree with immigrants coming into our countrey, the fact remains the same- they will get into America. Whether they do it legally or illegally, they will enter our country and live here. Here is the difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration: legal means we know who is here, illegal means we don't. Meaning, if we allow immigrants to gain citizenship easier, we will know who is in our country. If we don't allow them to gain citizenship, we will have no idea who is here.
We talk about fighting a War on Terror. We go to different nations and destroy them. We send our troops into rogue nations and allow them to die by the thousands. But, wouldn't it make sense, and I know I am only a kid and I don't have government experience, but wouldn't it make sense to make sure our HOMELAND is safe from terror before sending our troops to other nations? Wouldn't it make sense to make sure we don't have terrorists, and rapists, and gang members, and drug lords, coming into our country to terrorize our nation, and more importantly, our streets, before going and preserving other countries?
That is how you fight a "war on terror". You stop illegal immigration. You make sure you know who is coming through our borders. If we keep doing what we are doing (which is nothing), we will never have a remedy to the problem. We will never know who is going through our borders, so we will never know how many terrorists are getting through, our how many rapists are are entering our country.
Forget about Iran. Forget about North Korea. If you truly want to keep America safe, stop illegal immigration.
Unfortunately, our 'leaders' don't understand this idea.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Ann Coulter
Let us take a minute out of the present political situations- the impending immigration vote, the War in Iraq, the fired prosecutors- and look at one woman. A woman who, in my opinion, may just be the scum of the Earth. I am talking about none other than the woman who got rich off of making liberals angry, Ann Coulter.
Ann Coulter has said some very incredible things in the past. Things such as: "...all terrorists are Muslims" and "rag head talks tough, rag head dies". We haven't heard from her in a little while. I don't know why- she may be writing another disgusting book, or she may be hiding in her mansion. But she is at it again!
Monday, she blatantly said that if she was going to talk about John Edwards again, she would say that she wished he would be killed in a terrorist assassination. The amount of hatred this woman spews out of her mouth is amazing. She degrades Muslims, women, blacks...in fact, the only people she does not say hateful things about are white males.
This is what America's core problem is. People like Coulter (such as Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly) who use their fame not to help America, but to divide it. By dividing America, they can gain more fame and, of course, money. By saying the most hateful things they can think of, they keep people coming back for more and, for some reason, it works. But in doing so, they are hurting America.
The main priority we have as thinkers is not to see how much money we can put in our bank accounts, but to figure out how to make America better. To make America better, we must unify. Liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, along with Independents and Third-Wayers- everyone needs to take each other, arm in arm, and forge a path to a better America. One where the People are truly reflected by who they vote for. One where people listen to Barack Obama's politics and not Ann Coulter's. One where lobbyists are nowhere near Washington. One where everybody prospers, not just the Americans that can afford to.
Ann Coulter is much more than a woman (or much less than a human, depending on how you look at things). She is not just a revolting, polarizing figure. She is the epitome of what is wrong in America, the perfect image that illustrates the problems we face in America today. In order for America to move forward, she must be defeated. No longer can we listen to her, or buy her books, or go to her speeches. She can not be given any more fuel to her already roaring fire of hate and negativity. We, Mission: Democracy, and every other American out there, must stop her from continuining her path of destruction.
Take care everyone. And please, give a moment of your time, and go to BarackObama.com. Donate to his campaign, with even just $10. Make his campaign of hope the true image of America.
Bob Witmer
PS- My book will be on sale shortly. If you wish to become a member of the Mission: Democracy Street Team, send me your name, address, and state. The only way this book will reach the masses is by your help.
Ann Coulter has said some very incredible things in the past. Things such as: "...all terrorists are Muslims" and "rag head talks tough, rag head dies". We haven't heard from her in a little while. I don't know why- she may be writing another disgusting book, or she may be hiding in her mansion. But she is at it again!
Monday, she blatantly said that if she was going to talk about John Edwards again, she would say that she wished he would be killed in a terrorist assassination. The amount of hatred this woman spews out of her mouth is amazing. She degrades Muslims, women, blacks...in fact, the only people she does not say hateful things about are white males.
This is what America's core problem is. People like Coulter (such as Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly) who use their fame not to help America, but to divide it. By dividing America, they can gain more fame and, of course, money. By saying the most hateful things they can think of, they keep people coming back for more and, for some reason, it works. But in doing so, they are hurting America.
The main priority we have as thinkers is not to see how much money we can put in our bank accounts, but to figure out how to make America better. To make America better, we must unify. Liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, along with Independents and Third-Wayers- everyone needs to take each other, arm in arm, and forge a path to a better America. One where the People are truly reflected by who they vote for. One where people listen to Barack Obama's politics and not Ann Coulter's. One where lobbyists are nowhere near Washington. One where everybody prospers, not just the Americans that can afford to.
Ann Coulter is much more than a woman (or much less than a human, depending on how you look at things). She is not just a revolting, polarizing figure. She is the epitome of what is wrong in America, the perfect image that illustrates the problems we face in America today. In order for America to move forward, she must be defeated. No longer can we listen to her, or buy her books, or go to her speeches. She can not be given any more fuel to her already roaring fire of hate and negativity. We, Mission: Democracy, and every other American out there, must stop her from continuining her path of destruction.
Take care everyone. And please, give a moment of your time, and go to BarackObama.com. Donate to his campaign, with even just $10. Make his campaign of hope the true image of America.
Bob Witmer
PS- My book will be on sale shortly. If you wish to become a member of the Mission: Democracy Street Team, send me your name, address, and state. The only way this book will reach the masses is by your help.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Three thousand five hundred sixty
Note- Sorry for the huge delay in this post, guys. I attended a nationals event for speech and debate in Wichita, Kansas for the past week. From here on out, I should be able to write one every other day, and sometimes every day, and sometimes even more than one a day. So, keep checking back. Now, onto the news...
This weekend has been deadly for our troops in Iraq. Twelve of the bravest men and women in America were killed on Saturday, ten of these deaths happening in Baghdad. The death toll for American troops is now 3560.
There seemed to be some reconciliation going on, though. This morning, peace talks between warring Shiite and Sunni tribes were going on in a Baghdad hotel called the Mansour Hotel. They met in the hotel lobby and the tribal sheikhs, along with some of their warriors and assistants, were discussing ways to end the violence. Unfortunately, a suicide bomber blew himself and the seven sheikhs, along with atleast five others, after targetting the hotel and detonating his bombs once he got there. Excluding the tribal warriors and sheikhs, an Iraqi journalist and civilians were killed and the hotel was absolutely gutted.
Yet our "fearless" leader, George Dubya, has still not gotten us any closer to leaving Iraq. Look, let's be realistic here. Do you really, truly believe, that we will ever reach stability in Iraq? Not us. Not America. It can not happen. The only way stability will ever be reached in Iraq is if Iraqis reach it. And, right now, that doesn't seem to even be plausible. Tribes were negotiationg nonviolent ways to resolve matters in Iraq, yet look what happened to them! They were all killed. They were killed for trying to bring stability to Iraq. Stability will not be a word associated with Iraq until America leaves and years of a revolution have gone by.
Revolution. In the late 1700's, America went through one. We should all know the story, as long as you paid even the slightest bit of attention in American History classes- Britain controlled us, we didn't like it, "No Taxation Without Representation", the Olive Branch Petition, yadda yadda yadda. What happened? Americans went through an American Revolution to take over what was theirs. We didn't have foreign soldiers helping us. We didn't have hundreds of thousands of French soldiers showing up in our villages and fighting for us. All we had was French aid- some money, some weapons, and a lot of encouragment. But Americans fought for it, and Americans lost their lives. The only way a revolution can be properly waged is if the revolutionaries make the sacrifices. The only way to achieve a Republic is for the citizens to fight for it. You can not have an outside force fight your revolution and then give you a Republic; that is plainly not how things work. Yet, right now, we are trying to do that in Iraq.
We need to leave Iraq. If we truly want that nation to have any chance for peace and stability, we need to allow Iraq to be Iraq. We need to allow a year or four of a violent revolution to take place, in order for stability to be reached. We will never have enough troops in Iraq to create stability, because America can not do it. Iraq needs to do it. Iraqi civilians need to fight for it.
In other news...
This weekend has been deadly for our troops in Iraq. Twelve of the bravest men and women in America were killed on Saturday, ten of these deaths happening in Baghdad. The death toll for American troops is now 3560.
There seemed to be some reconciliation going on, though. This morning, peace talks between warring Shiite and Sunni tribes were going on in a Baghdad hotel called the Mansour Hotel. They met in the hotel lobby and the tribal sheikhs, along with some of their warriors and assistants, were discussing ways to end the violence. Unfortunately, a suicide bomber blew himself and the seven sheikhs, along with atleast five others, after targetting the hotel and detonating his bombs once he got there. Excluding the tribal warriors and sheikhs, an Iraqi journalist and civilians were killed and the hotel was absolutely gutted.
Yet our "fearless" leader, George Dubya, has still not gotten us any closer to leaving Iraq. Look, let's be realistic here. Do you really, truly believe, that we will ever reach stability in Iraq? Not us. Not America. It can not happen. The only way stability will ever be reached in Iraq is if Iraqis reach it. And, right now, that doesn't seem to even be plausible. Tribes were negotiationg nonviolent ways to resolve matters in Iraq, yet look what happened to them! They were all killed. They were killed for trying to bring stability to Iraq. Stability will not be a word associated with Iraq until America leaves and years of a revolution have gone by.
Revolution. In the late 1700's, America went through one. We should all know the story, as long as you paid even the slightest bit of attention in American History classes- Britain controlled us, we didn't like it, "No Taxation Without Representation", the Olive Branch Petition, yadda yadda yadda. What happened? Americans went through an American Revolution to take over what was theirs. We didn't have foreign soldiers helping us. We didn't have hundreds of thousands of French soldiers showing up in our villages and fighting for us. All we had was French aid- some money, some weapons, and a lot of encouragment. But Americans fought for it, and Americans lost their lives. The only way a revolution can be properly waged is if the revolutionaries make the sacrifices. The only way to achieve a Republic is for the citizens to fight for it. You can not have an outside force fight your revolution and then give you a Republic; that is plainly not how things work. Yet, right now, we are trying to do that in Iraq.
We need to leave Iraq. If we truly want that nation to have any chance for peace and stability, we need to allow Iraq to be Iraq. We need to allow a year or four of a violent revolution to take place, in order for stability to be reached. We will never have enough troops in Iraq to create stability, because America can not do it. Iraq needs to do it. Iraqi civilians need to fight for it.
In other news...
- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows will be coming out on July 21. I don't know about you, but I am pretty psyched for that. I know, I know, it isn't the usual political news. But come on! It is Harry Potter. This book, though it may not seem it, does have a lot of political references in it. But, I am not going to make it political- I just love the series. The book will answer a lot of questions that us fans have- is Dumbledore really dead?, where are Snape's allegiances?, what are the other horcruxes?, what were Harry's parents' professions?, who will die (atleast two main characters)?, etc. etc. Any ideas? Email me your ideas!
Take care,
Bob Wit
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Democrats Debate
Well, before I go any further, allow me to make sure that I apologize for my schedule inaccuracy. I said that the Republicans were going to debate on Monday...today is Tuesday, and they are debating right now. I was wrong. Sorry...and thank you to all of you who emailed me my mistake. Good job, guys! That is what this movement is about!
Sunday was a pretty good night I think. It really was nothing surprising, not at all actually.
My problems with the debate:
Sunday was a pretty good night I think. It really was nothing surprising, not at all actually.
My problems with the debate:
- Too much time spent on front runners (Obama, Clinton, Edwards). I love Obama, but come on! Debates are supposed to be a way to see all the candidates and make a good choice. What we got was about an hour total with the frontrunners and a half hour total with the lower teir candidates. Exaggeration? Yes....but not much!
- Gov. Bill Richardson. If Barack Obama was not a Democrat, I would have to say that Richardson would be my pick for the Democrat candidacy. But Sunday his performance was absolutely horrid. I was very dissapointed...his answers to the questions seemed very off topic. Some damage control will be needed if he has ANY chance of picking up the candidacy.
- The questions! Let's get some more hard hitting questions, huh? How about the questions about education? Come on! I enjoyed the Darfur questions and the few abortion and health care ones, but I think we all know each one of their Iraq policies, so why keep pounding it in?
I enjoyed it, I really did. Yet, those three things really annoyed me. I mean, these debates are supposed to be insights to every candidate, aren't they? Exactly. Yet, some spots really were very good. Spots like...
- Barack Obama's comeback to the Edwards' criticism on Iraq. Edwards criticized Obama for casting his "nay" vote silently to the Iraq Funding Bill. Obama fired back, saying that Edwards was "four and a half years late" on leadership in this issue. I thought it was great. For all of you that do not know, Obama was against the war from the start.
- The question about Bill Clinton. It was phrased something like "How would you utilize Bill Clinton in your administration". It was asked to the majority of the candidates. The consensus seemed to be that he would be an ambassador to a foreign nation.
- Hillary Clinton, when she called Bill her "dear husband".
- The "first one hundred days" question. One thing I have not heard any president speak about yet is their first one hundred days.
The winner? Hmm...that is hard to say. I think that my man, Barack Obama, did very well. I think, I hope for the future of this country, that his name will move up in the polls after this debate. But the winner? The winner would be Joe Biden. He was forceful, spoke about the issues...he really knew what he was doing. Good job, Senator. Good job.
....you still don't beat Barack.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Debates and Debates
When you watch a presidential debate, it does not have that much of an impact on the way you will vote. You aren't going to suddenly say: "OH MY GOD!" after one of the debaters answers a question. More or less, the debates are more about seeing how 'presidential' someone looks, not about the issues.
Within the next 72 hours, eighteen men and women will have debated each other.
That is right, folks! Tomorrow is the Democrats, and the next day is the Republicans.
On Sunday, the Democrats will be debating each other. What does this mean? Well, we will see three well known Democrats, in the middle of the stage, all vying for an up on the others. The other five will be at their sides, trying to burst on the scene somehow. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards will steal the show. Last time, Obama "won" the debate, from the viewers' perspective. I wouldn't know- I fell asleep during the debate. The only exciting part came from the craziest of them all, Mike Gravel, at the last couple minutes. He challenged Obama, and Obama made him look like...well, a fool. Other than that, the only part that got my attention was when Dennis Kucinich's impeachment charges were brought up. The proctor asked which Democrats would be willing to back Kucinich's impeachment charges. Not one of them raised their hands. At this point in time, there are only four Democrats with a chance of winning the nomination- Obama, Clinton, and Edwards, with Gore (who isn't even running). These debates are supposed to be about reaching the American People and giving them some insight on the options they can choose from. So, if these debates are used to their full potential, hopefully one of these smaller, yet possible, Democrats can make an impact (such as Gov. Bill Richardson).
The Republican debate was even more of a laugh than the Democrats'. I apologize, but I think that the Republicans' debate was just a fiasco. One Republican tried to make an impact. Imagine this- he told the truth. Ron Paul, a Republican like no other, spoke of why we were attacked on September 11. He said that we caused it because of how militaristic we are against many other foreign nations. Funny enough, everyone on that stage attacked him for telling the TRUTH, along with some boos from the audience. This is why I don't watch the Republicans- they lie, and then if someone is good enough to tell the truth to the People, they try to distance themselves from that person. I don't like the two party system that we use in America, and the Democrats aren't my favorite people either, but watching Ron Paul get bullied on that stage by the likes of Rudy Guiliani...well, that just made me mad.
Right now, there are very few candidates that have a chance at getting their party's nomination, and each one has their own problems. On the Democratic end we have John Edwards, who was a part of the losing team in 2004 and who got into DC by being a patent lawyer; Hillary Clinton, whose time in DC has led to corruption and who never shows the slightest bit of emotion; and Barack Obama, whose only real flaw, his inexperience, is more of a blessing to me- that, and the attacks from Fox News he endures every day. On the Republican side we have Rudy Guiliani, whose only experience is in local government, giving him less experience than Obama; Mitt Romney, who will find it difficult to relate to Americans given his over $200 million dollar worth; and John McCain, who seems to be slipping into insanity (while singing "Bomb Bomb Iran") and who lost to GEORGE BUSH in 2000.
These debates will do nothing. I will watch them, though, in the hopes that Barack Obama gains more ground on Hillary and that Ron Paul lashes back at every Republican on that stage. And, of course, to watch my favorite news anchor, Wolf Blitzer, be the proctor.
Within the next 72 hours, eighteen men and women will have debated each other.
That is right, folks! Tomorrow is the Democrats, and the next day is the Republicans.
On Sunday, the Democrats will be debating each other. What does this mean? Well, we will see three well known Democrats, in the middle of the stage, all vying for an up on the others. The other five will be at their sides, trying to burst on the scene somehow. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards will steal the show. Last time, Obama "won" the debate, from the viewers' perspective. I wouldn't know- I fell asleep during the debate. The only exciting part came from the craziest of them all, Mike Gravel, at the last couple minutes. He challenged Obama, and Obama made him look like...well, a fool. Other than that, the only part that got my attention was when Dennis Kucinich's impeachment charges were brought up. The proctor asked which Democrats would be willing to back Kucinich's impeachment charges. Not one of them raised their hands. At this point in time, there are only four Democrats with a chance of winning the nomination- Obama, Clinton, and Edwards, with Gore (who isn't even running). These debates are supposed to be about reaching the American People and giving them some insight on the options they can choose from. So, if these debates are used to their full potential, hopefully one of these smaller, yet possible, Democrats can make an impact (such as Gov. Bill Richardson).
The Republican debate was even more of a laugh than the Democrats'. I apologize, but I think that the Republicans' debate was just a fiasco. One Republican tried to make an impact. Imagine this- he told the truth. Ron Paul, a Republican like no other, spoke of why we were attacked on September 11. He said that we caused it because of how militaristic we are against many other foreign nations. Funny enough, everyone on that stage attacked him for telling the TRUTH, along with some boos from the audience. This is why I don't watch the Republicans- they lie, and then if someone is good enough to tell the truth to the People, they try to distance themselves from that person. I don't like the two party system that we use in America, and the Democrats aren't my favorite people either, but watching Ron Paul get bullied on that stage by the likes of Rudy Guiliani...well, that just made me mad.
Right now, there are very few candidates that have a chance at getting their party's nomination, and each one has their own problems. On the Democratic end we have John Edwards, who was a part of the losing team in 2004 and who got into DC by being a patent lawyer; Hillary Clinton, whose time in DC has led to corruption and who never shows the slightest bit of emotion; and Barack Obama, whose only real flaw, his inexperience, is more of a blessing to me- that, and the attacks from Fox News he endures every day. On the Republican side we have Rudy Guiliani, whose only experience is in local government, giving him less experience than Obama; Mitt Romney, who will find it difficult to relate to Americans given his over $200 million dollar worth; and John McCain, who seems to be slipping into insanity (while singing "Bomb Bomb Iran") and who lost to GEORGE BUSH in 2000.
These debates will do nothing. I will watch them, though, in the hopes that Barack Obama gains more ground on Hillary and that Ron Paul lashes back at every Republican on that stage. And, of course, to watch my favorite news anchor, Wolf Blitzer, be the proctor.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
AIDs Funding
Dubya has done something that...oh God, I can't even say it....he has done something that I am actually....in favor of! Wow...that is a hard thing to throw out...
Yes, all of my progressive patriot friends! Dubya has done something good! Yesterday, he asked Congress for three times the amount of money they have put into his international AIDs initiative. Along with the $30 billion dollars he is requesting, he is also asking for the initiative to be extended another five years, increasing it to a ten year program. This is a phenomenal request.
Think about this. Tripling the amount of money they have put into this initiative can boost its success greatly. We may be able to greatly decrease the rate of people gaining HIV, and hopefully reduce the amount getting AIDs as a result. This would be an awesome thing to do, if the desired result actually happens.
What makes me a bit skeptical is this: what has the initiative done since it was announced and put into effect, in 2003? Has it decreased the rate of the spread of AIDs? Not at all. The number of people with both HIV and AIDs increases each and every year, and, by 2030, it will move from the fourth largest killing disease to the third. Has it made more countries aware of AIDs? Possible, but even if we have made countries in Africa, and other third world countries, more aware of AIDs, the statistics are showing that they either: 1, don't care, or 2, don't understand. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), there were 39.5 million people living with AIDs last year, and a whopping 25 million lived in the sub-Sahara region of Africa. Thats the majority of people with AIDs, in one, contained area.
So, that is the question. Whether I believe adding money to this program is an awesome idea or not, the question remains the same. What will it do? What has the program done in recent history, since 2003? Because, from what I see, it has done nothing to reduce the number of cases of AIDs. So, what does it do? What has it done? Give me something- a statistic, an outline of expectations, something! If you can't tell me, why should the American People back such a program?
Personally, I believe they must revise the initiative somehow to make it more beneficial. I hope that the bulk of this funding goes to AIDs research, so that we can somehow make a groundbreaking finding and get a cure to this murdering machine. It doesn't even have to be a cure! Maybe something that helps increase the amount of T-Cells in an HIV patient, so that they aren't brought into the hold of AIDs. Something! If we are going to invest over $30 billion, we better have some type of outline that shows us how this money will be spent, and what it is expected to do.
HIV/AIDs is a terrible killer. Personally, I believe that when we talk about health care, we can not just talk about the uninsured, though they must be the top priority. But I believe we must also keep in mind diseases such as AIDs. When we speak of universal health care, we must also think of finding a cure, or finding a way to reduce the amount of cases we have. AIDs must be a top priority. If not, it will keep gaining ground until one day we look around and see that there is nothing we can do about it.
So, for the first time, and probably only time, I will say it- a half pat on the back goes to you, Dubya. You, for once, made some type of sense. You asked for more money to go to something actually BENEFICIAL to humanity, rather than destructive. Now, all you need to do, is change the initiative to make it more successful.
Dubya, doesn't it feel good to ask for money that will actually help rather than hurt? Do you think you could do that more often? Yeah... I guess I am pushing my luck on that one...
Yes, all of my progressive patriot friends! Dubya has done something good! Yesterday, he asked Congress for three times the amount of money they have put into his international AIDs initiative. Along with the $30 billion dollars he is requesting, he is also asking for the initiative to be extended another five years, increasing it to a ten year program. This is a phenomenal request.
Think about this. Tripling the amount of money they have put into this initiative can boost its success greatly. We may be able to greatly decrease the rate of people gaining HIV, and hopefully reduce the amount getting AIDs as a result. This would be an awesome thing to do, if the desired result actually happens.
What makes me a bit skeptical is this: what has the initiative done since it was announced and put into effect, in 2003? Has it decreased the rate of the spread of AIDs? Not at all. The number of people with both HIV and AIDs increases each and every year, and, by 2030, it will move from the fourth largest killing disease to the third. Has it made more countries aware of AIDs? Possible, but even if we have made countries in Africa, and other third world countries, more aware of AIDs, the statistics are showing that they either: 1, don't care, or 2, don't understand. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), there were 39.5 million people living with AIDs last year, and a whopping 25 million lived in the sub-Sahara region of Africa. Thats the majority of people with AIDs, in one, contained area.
So, that is the question. Whether I believe adding money to this program is an awesome idea or not, the question remains the same. What will it do? What has the program done in recent history, since 2003? Because, from what I see, it has done nothing to reduce the number of cases of AIDs. So, what does it do? What has it done? Give me something- a statistic, an outline of expectations, something! If you can't tell me, why should the American People back such a program?
Personally, I believe they must revise the initiative somehow to make it more beneficial. I hope that the bulk of this funding goes to AIDs research, so that we can somehow make a groundbreaking finding and get a cure to this murdering machine. It doesn't even have to be a cure! Maybe something that helps increase the amount of T-Cells in an HIV patient, so that they aren't brought into the hold of AIDs. Something! If we are going to invest over $30 billion, we better have some type of outline that shows us how this money will be spent, and what it is expected to do.
HIV/AIDs is a terrible killer. Personally, I believe that when we talk about health care, we can not just talk about the uninsured, though they must be the top priority. But I believe we must also keep in mind diseases such as AIDs. When we speak of universal health care, we must also think of finding a cure, or finding a way to reduce the amount of cases we have. AIDs must be a top priority. If not, it will keep gaining ground until one day we look around and see that there is nothing we can do about it.
So, for the first time, and probably only time, I will say it- a half pat on the back goes to you, Dubya. You, for once, made some type of sense. You asked for more money to go to something actually BENEFICIAL to humanity, rather than destructive. Now, all you need to do, is change the initiative to make it more successful.
Dubya, doesn't it feel good to ask for money that will actually help rather than hurt? Do you think you could do that more often? Yeah... I guess I am pushing my luck on that one...
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
US Imposes Sanctions on Sudan
Before we get into anything else, let's take a stroll down history...
In 2003, Darfur, Sudan, was the home of millions of people, predominately either Black or Muslim Africans. The ruling powers of Sudan were Muslims, and an inequality was felt, with the blacks of Darfur feeling that they were thought as inferior to the Muslims. The blacks wanted more equality and asked for a place in the conversations for power sharing agreements in Sudan. Unfortunately, these calls went unheard. In early 2003, rebels calling themselves the Darfur Liberation Front, along with two other rebel groups (the Justice and Equality Movement and the Sudan Liberation Movement) , began to attack different targets in the country, including military convoys and governmental buildings. Much like our ancestors did during the American Revolution, these rebels tried to take the power that they were asking for. Unfortunately, the Sudanese government had some other plans.
The government sent out an Arab militia, called the Janjaweed, to terrorize the Black Darfurians, and blacks outside of Darfur also. Since then, anywhere between 200 and 400 thousand black men and women have been killed by this militia, with over 2 million becoming refugees. Women are being raped as their mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, husbands and children, are forced to watch. The majority of children are not being fed or treated properly because of the lack of aide, and many men, women and children are undergoing a famine. The fighting has been going on for four long years now, and the possibilities of it continuing seem to be very good.
The UN, and specifically our nation, must have some type of hand in ending this violence. People, it is no longer war. It is a genocide! They are targeting one group of people, the blacks, and trying to dispose of them. We call it a conflict, but ever since the Janjaweed has been unleashed it was no longer a conflict. Did we call Hitler's Holocaust a conflict? No. That's because Hitler targeted a group of people, the Jews, and tried to rid the world of them. That is what is happening in Darfur, except you can take out the word "Jews" and subsitute it with "blacks".
We forget about history far too often in society. Let's look at the early '90's, in a small nation called "Rwanda", in which a genocide, much like this, occured. We turned our back on Rwanda, took all of our citizens out, along with our troops and many UN peacekeepers, and tried to close our eyes. The conflict ended, with the rebels winning. Sadly, horribly, when it was all said and done, over 1 million people were killed. One million! Americans have no clue what that is like. We all banded together around 2973 people dying in the World Trade Center attacks. This is 1 million people! I am sorry, but I really don't think any of us can put our heads around the amount of people that is. Let's put it into perspective like this, too. Saddam Hussein is said to have killed around 100 to 300 thousand Iraqis in his reign of power, which was over 20 years. It is possible that the genocide in Darfur has surpassed that number by miles, in less than five years. So, my friends, what area needs the real help?
Today, our fearless leader, President "Dubya", said that he was putting new sactions on Sudan, including restrictions on thirty-one companies that can no longer do business in America, along with two government leaders and one rebel leader. Wow.
I am sorry, but I really do not believe this is going to change anything. This Darfur Genocide can only be stopped through the force and power of an actual "Grand Coalition".
I know what you are thinking, I know. You are a liberal! How can you say this about Darfur when you think we should have never invaded Iraq. Good question. At first, I'll admit, it does seem a bit..."flip-floppy". But it truly isn't. There are huge differences between Iraq and Darfur.
First off, Darfur is a GENOCIDE. The UN has labeled it the largest humanitarian crisis in the world. Its possible that 400 thousand people are dead. Two million have been sent away from their homes. Iraq was not a genocide, it was an authoritarian dictatorship. I am sorry, but you can go around the world, and you will see that there are many other cases of this type of a government. We should limit our interventions to the genocide, the humanitarian crises. There is no parallel between Iraq and Darfur.
Now, if you don't see the difference between the two, you can look at what we have done to both. So far, in Darfur, we have tried sanctions- they have been imposed for years. We tried discussions- Presidential hopeful Gov. Bill Richardson went to the country and spoke to the leader, President Umar al-Bashir. In Iraq...well, I don't really remember us speaking with Saddam Hussein before entering his country and killing 655,000 Iraqi civilians...but that is another story.
The fact is that we no longer have the niceties of time. If we don't stop this genocide, we will no longer have any black Darfurians left, and the areas around Darfur will be left without any of this race of people. The world will no longer contain them.
We need to do much more than just sanction them now. We must learn from history. We must act now. The US must go to the UN and ask for nations to accompany us into Darfur, Sudan, and end this terrible crisis. If we don't, well...if we don't, Darfur is doomed.
In 2003, Darfur, Sudan, was the home of millions of people, predominately either Black or Muslim Africans. The ruling powers of Sudan were Muslims, and an inequality was felt, with the blacks of Darfur feeling that they were thought as inferior to the Muslims. The blacks wanted more equality and asked for a place in the conversations for power sharing agreements in Sudan. Unfortunately, these calls went unheard. In early 2003, rebels calling themselves the Darfur Liberation Front, along with two other rebel groups (the Justice and Equality Movement and the Sudan Liberation Movement) , began to attack different targets in the country, including military convoys and governmental buildings. Much like our ancestors did during the American Revolution, these rebels tried to take the power that they were asking for. Unfortunately, the Sudanese government had some other plans.
The government sent out an Arab militia, called the Janjaweed, to terrorize the Black Darfurians, and blacks outside of Darfur also. Since then, anywhere between 200 and 400 thousand black men and women have been killed by this militia, with over 2 million becoming refugees. Women are being raped as their mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, husbands and children, are forced to watch. The majority of children are not being fed or treated properly because of the lack of aide, and many men, women and children are undergoing a famine. The fighting has been going on for four long years now, and the possibilities of it continuing seem to be very good.
The UN, and specifically our nation, must have some type of hand in ending this violence. People, it is no longer war. It is a genocide! They are targeting one group of people, the blacks, and trying to dispose of them. We call it a conflict, but ever since the Janjaweed has been unleashed it was no longer a conflict. Did we call Hitler's Holocaust a conflict? No. That's because Hitler targeted a group of people, the Jews, and tried to rid the world of them. That is what is happening in Darfur, except you can take out the word "Jews" and subsitute it with "blacks".
We forget about history far too often in society. Let's look at the early '90's, in a small nation called "Rwanda", in which a genocide, much like this, occured. We turned our back on Rwanda, took all of our citizens out, along with our troops and many UN peacekeepers, and tried to close our eyes. The conflict ended, with the rebels winning. Sadly, horribly, when it was all said and done, over 1 million people were killed. One million! Americans have no clue what that is like. We all banded together around 2973 people dying in the World Trade Center attacks. This is 1 million people! I am sorry, but I really don't think any of us can put our heads around the amount of people that is. Let's put it into perspective like this, too. Saddam Hussein is said to have killed around 100 to 300 thousand Iraqis in his reign of power, which was over 20 years. It is possible that the genocide in Darfur has surpassed that number by miles, in less than five years. So, my friends, what area needs the real help?
Today, our fearless leader, President "Dubya", said that he was putting new sactions on Sudan, including restrictions on thirty-one companies that can no longer do business in America, along with two government leaders and one rebel leader. Wow.
I am sorry, but I really do not believe this is going to change anything. This Darfur Genocide can only be stopped through the force and power of an actual "Grand Coalition".
I know what you are thinking, I know. You are a liberal! How can you say this about Darfur when you think we should have never invaded Iraq. Good question. At first, I'll admit, it does seem a bit..."flip-floppy". But it truly isn't. There are huge differences between Iraq and Darfur.
First off, Darfur is a GENOCIDE. The UN has labeled it the largest humanitarian crisis in the world. Its possible that 400 thousand people are dead. Two million have been sent away from their homes. Iraq was not a genocide, it was an authoritarian dictatorship. I am sorry, but you can go around the world, and you will see that there are many other cases of this type of a government. We should limit our interventions to the genocide, the humanitarian crises. There is no parallel between Iraq and Darfur.
Now, if you don't see the difference between the two, you can look at what we have done to both. So far, in Darfur, we have tried sanctions- they have been imposed for years. We tried discussions- Presidential hopeful Gov. Bill Richardson went to the country and spoke to the leader, President Umar al-Bashir. In Iraq...well, I don't really remember us speaking with Saddam Hussein before entering his country and killing 655,000 Iraqi civilians...but that is another story.
The fact is that we no longer have the niceties of time. If we don't stop this genocide, we will no longer have any black Darfurians left, and the areas around Darfur will be left without any of this race of people. The world will no longer contain them.
We need to do much more than just sanction them now. We must learn from history. We must act now. The US must go to the UN and ask for nations to accompany us into Darfur, Sudan, and end this terrible crisis. If we don't, well...if we don't, Darfur is doomed.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
The Beginning
America has been labeled a Democracy. Unfortunately, we all know this is not true.
Hello all. And welcome to Operation: Democracy.
Operation: Democracy is a movement. It is a movement to take back our government, the American government. It will be a movement like no other, one that changes the politics of America forever. One that breaks the green bonds our leaders have with businesses and PACs, connecting them to their backers and disconnecting them from their employers, the People.
It will be a movement of all People. Operation: Democracy will not only encompass one group of America, but the People as a whole. We will not only be made up of African Americans, or women, or Latin-Americans, or Asian Americans. It will not only be made up of Buddhists, or Christians, or Hindus, or Jews, or Muslims. This movement will not only be made up of liberals, or conservatives, or Democrats, or Republicans, or Independents. This movement is limited no groups. If you are an American, you are welcome to join.
Our goal is simple. We wish to achieve a true democratic Republic, one that is ran by and for the People. We wish to kick businesses and lobbyists out of our government, in order to allow our elected officials a clear mind to keep the will of the People inside it. We wish to change the government's structure, so that the House of Representatives is not made up of 435 politicians, but 435 average Americans, brought together at random to truly be "representatives" of the People.
So a question is raised. What is America's government if not a Democracy, or a Republic? Good question. We are a Plutocratic Republic, a system where the people elect representatives (a Republic) after these representatives go through a funding process by PACs, and businesses, and lobbyists, and the wealthy class (Plutocracy). Once they are put into office, the four horsemen- PACs, businesses, lobbyists, and the wealthy- pay these officials off, with money and gifts and vacations, so that the officials keep THEIR will in mind, and not ours. That is why I have coined the name, "Plutorepublic", to describe America.
I will be posting in this blog very often, probably atleast once a day, maybe a little more, maybe a little less. Please, come back and enjoy it.
Operation: Democracy must have your help to achieve its goal. This goal must be reached- if it isn't, then America's last chance has run out.
Hello all. And welcome to Operation: Democracy.
Operation: Democracy is a movement. It is a movement to take back our government, the American government. It will be a movement like no other, one that changes the politics of America forever. One that breaks the green bonds our leaders have with businesses and PACs, connecting them to their backers and disconnecting them from their employers, the People.
It will be a movement of all People. Operation: Democracy will not only encompass one group of America, but the People as a whole. We will not only be made up of African Americans, or women, or Latin-Americans, or Asian Americans. It will not only be made up of Buddhists, or Christians, or Hindus, or Jews, or Muslims. This movement will not only be made up of liberals, or conservatives, or Democrats, or Republicans, or Independents. This movement is limited no groups. If you are an American, you are welcome to join.
Our goal is simple. We wish to achieve a true democratic Republic, one that is ran by and for the People. We wish to kick businesses and lobbyists out of our government, in order to allow our elected officials a clear mind to keep the will of the People inside it. We wish to change the government's structure, so that the House of Representatives is not made up of 435 politicians, but 435 average Americans, brought together at random to truly be "representatives" of the People.
So a question is raised. What is America's government if not a Democracy, or a Republic? Good question. We are a Plutocratic Republic, a system where the people elect representatives (a Republic) after these representatives go through a funding process by PACs, and businesses, and lobbyists, and the wealthy class (Plutocracy). Once they are put into office, the four horsemen- PACs, businesses, lobbyists, and the wealthy- pay these officials off, with money and gifts and vacations, so that the officials keep THEIR will in mind, and not ours. That is why I have coined the name, "Plutorepublic", to describe America.
I will be posting in this blog very often, probably atleast once a day, maybe a little more, maybe a little less. Please, come back and enjoy it.
Operation: Democracy must have your help to achieve its goal. This goal must be reached- if it isn't, then America's last chance has run out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)