July 7, 2010
July 5, 2010
Fact-finding in a 1984 World
Before writing this column, it seemed prudent to do some fact checking.
We intended to start with a reference to a Republican talking point about the statute of limitations for war crimes imposing a shrinking window of opportunity for any war crimes trial for George W. Bush. Repeated Google searches confirmed that he had been President and some Nazis had been tried for war crimes. Our recollection of talking points about a statute of limitations for war crimes continued to elude our Google searches. That, in turn, reminded us of Orwell’s 1984; “And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed – if all records told the same tale – then the lie passed into history and became truth.”
We had intended to use a specific quote about Bush racing against the statute of limitations as the basis for this column, but since we don’t have access to Lexis/Nexis; we couldn’t find any such quote and so it becomes an exercise in futility.
We had intended to ridicule the concept that there is a statue of limitations for war crimes. If such a concept had been cited as the Bush term in office drew to a close, then America’s free press would have pointed out the absurdity of the idea, wouldn’t they . . . or is the concept of a free press a false memory?
When both CBS TV and the New York Times ran items about Jeb Bush recently, it was immediately followed by a Chris Wallace reference to the possibility of a third member of the Bush White House dynasty. That, in turn, reminded this columnist that there is an unrelenting avalanche of pro-Bush propaganda that is cheerfully dumped on a (mostly) unsuspecting audience of gullible rubes by the alleged “free press.”
If Jeb is going to be the next President, why bother to write a column about the possibility of war crimes committed by a member of the Bush family?
“This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound tracks, cartoons, photographs – to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance.” After 9-11, there were some unsubstantiated reports that movies containing shots with the World Trade Center twin tower buildings were altered and the buildings eliminated from the images.
Could Jeb be elected President while the New York Time refrained from once mentioning the Broward Savings and Loan facet of the Bush Family History? Didn’t they recently admit that they didn’t call waterboarding torture because of a Bush Family edict? Isn’t it reasonable to assume if they voluntarily submitted once to the Bush Editorial Guidelines, they’d do it again? (and again . . . and again . . . and again . . .?)
We had a recnet chat with a fellow, Gentle Waters, who covered some of Berkeley’s most famous protests for the now defunct Berkeley Barb weekly newspaper. He agreed that using the electronic voting machines would facilitate the return of the Bush dynasty to the White House.
Did the soldiers in WWII fight to establish such a mockery of democracy in action? At the same time we met the former member of the Barb staff, we came across a 1945 copy of “The Best From YANK The Army Weekly” and were astonished to find that at least one solider specifically said he was against that future phenomenon. In a poem titled “A Plea to the Post-War Planners, T/Sgt. Philip Reisman USMC wrote (E. P. Dutton & Co hardback p-97): “ . . . I’ve little use for synthesized soup, or operas (soapy) televised, or trips to Mars in Roman candles, or caskets trimmed with Lucite handles, or wireless ballots for brainless voters, or Buicks with transparent motors . . .”
Here’s a difficult question for a conservative. Ask: “Will George W. Bush use the statute of limitations to avoid a War Crimes Trial?” It assumes that Bush was a war criminal and just narrows the focus down to a binary choice: will he or won’t he skate? Wouldn’t the concept of a statute of limitations for war crimes give Adolph Eichmann a good laugh?
When George W. Bush stepped down from the Presidency, some references were made about time running out for any War Crime Trials. The collaborators in the “free press” kept a straight face and refused to ask the antagonistic question about “Where did you get the absurd notion that war crimes have a statute of limitations?” Instead they just pass along the phony Republican talking point and essentially become accessories after the fact for the war crimes.
Chris Wallace will be remembered for being the first to speculate about a Jeb presidency, but the big opportunity for a “journalist” to shamelessly suck up to the Bush family and win brownie points will come this fall after the electronic voting machines are used to prime the pump for a Jeb win in 2012 by giving a Republican majority to both the House and the Senate. Who will be the first “journalist” to anoint Jeb as the frontrunner?
Won’t the fellow, who sets the precedence for the rest of the media to meekly follow, get “mega-dittos” praise for his valiant effort to do the John the Baptist routine for the Jebster?
Would it be good marketing to call the younger Bush Dubya’s Big Brother as a way of reinforcing the dynasty meme?
Since Jeb was the governator of Florida, isn’t there ample opportunity now for him to step up to the network microphones and criticize President Obama for the oil spills that are arriving at the various Florida beaches this summer? Couldn’t the sycophant “free press” skip over the process of the coronation of Jeb as front runner and cut right to crafting Jeb’s image as the leading spokesman for the Republican Party?
A journalist might point out that it would be odd to have Jeb blaming Obama for a policy of dispensing with oversight and regulation that was instituted by George W. Bush, but there is precious little danger of a bonafide journalist saying anything about a member of the Bush family that isn’t pure unadulterated admiration. Only the lunatics known as extreme left bloggers can say anything that smacks of disrespect for the Bush dynasty and they are merely tolerated as if they are America’s official crazy uncle.
For cynical columnists the summer of 2010 may be remembered as being similar to the minutes at a Rolling Stone concert when the audience’s collective nerves are stretched to the breaking point as they wait for Bill Graham to come on stage and say the magic incantation: “Ladies and gentlemen, it’s all about to happen . . . .” Just like a concert featuring the greatest Rock and Roll band, America will, this summer, work themselves into a frenzy of anticipation as “America’s next President” sits in the green room and waits for the paperless trail electronic voting machines to do their job. A Republican majority in the House and Senate will be installed this fall. Jeb will be anointed “frontrunner.” He’ll be elected in 2012 and the restoration of the Bush dynasty will be complete.
The compliant “free press” can do their part by beseeching Jeb for a statement about the arrival of the oil spill on Florida’s beeches and not blink an eye when his unbiased assessment is: “It’s all Obama’s fault.”
Orwell predicted: “The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that a past or future agreement with him was impossible.” Hence an endless war is not just inevitable; it is the ultimate goal. Isn’t it obvious that Jeb will do a better job than Obama when he takes the helm as commander-in-chief? The inauguration of a member of a dynasty will convey the proper image for thinking of the fighting for the pipeline in Afghanistan as an endless process that will be passed from generation to generation and not a passing fade.
Marty McFly said: “If you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything.” He forgot to add that if a member of the Bush family puts his mind to it and if that is augmented by the paper trail-less electronic voting machines; it’s a “gimme.”
For those who think that electronic voting machines shouldn’t be a daily cause for concern, maybe they should call the Mike Malloy radio program this week and ask guest host Brad Friedman, if such concern is a bit of “Duckly Lucky” alarmism in action or not.
Perhaps it was Barbara Bush who expressed the Bush family political philosophy when she said: “This is working out quite well for them; isn’t it?”
Now the disk jockey will play the 1984 hits: “Ghostbusters,” “Karma Chameleon” and “Church of the Poison Mind.” We have to go road test the new Flux Capacitor. Have a “thought crime” free type week.
Quote-to-Quote-to-Quote: Corporate Propaganda…
…And the way it’s done
“Corporations want us to believe that they are concerned, moral ‘corporate citizens’ — whatever that means. So businesses pump millions of dollars into charities and nonprofit organizations to deceive us into thinking that they care and are making things better. On top of that, corporate charity can buy the tacit cooperation of organizations that might otherwise be expected to criticize corporate policies. Some PR firms specialize in helping corporations to defeat activists, and co-optation is one of their tools.
“Some years ago, in a speech to clients in the cattle industry, Ron Duchin, senior vice-president of the PR firm Mongoven, Biscoe, and Duchin (which represents probably a quarter of the largest corporations in the world), outlined his firm’s basic divide-and-conquer strategy for defeating any social-change movement. Activists, he explained, fall into three basic categories: radicals, idealists, and realists. The first step in his strategy is to isolate and marginalize the radicals. They’re the ones who see the inherent structural problems that need remedying if indeed a particular change is to occur. To isolate them, PR firms will try to create a perception in the public mind that people advocating fundamental solutions are terrorists, extremists, fearmongers, outsiders, communists, or whatever. After marginalizing the radicals, the PR firm then identifies and ‘educates’ the idealists — concerned and sympathetic members of the public — by convincing them that the changes advocated by the radicals would hurt people. The goal is to sour the idealists on the idea of working with the radicals, and instead get them working with the realists.
“Realists, according to Duchin, are people who want reform but don’t really want to upset the status quo; big public-interest organizations that rely on foundation grants and corporate contributions are a prime example. With the correct handling, Duchin says, realists can be counted on to cut a deal with industry that can be touted as a ‘win-win’ solution, but that is actually an industry victory.”
– John Stauber, Editor of PR Watch.
(Read “The War on Truth” here.)“If we understand the mechanisms and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it.” […]
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country…. In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons … who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”
– Edward Bernays, the father of modern public relations, from his book “Propaganda.”[Note: Bernays' PR techniques for influencing the public were assimilated and expanded by Hitler's propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels to seize and hold power in Nazi Germany and are still in use today – just turn on the news. (Read "BP: Mitigating Exposure, Controlling the Response and Making Edward Bernays Proud!" by Steve Horn, PRWatch.org, June, 2010.)]
“The twentieth century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.”
– Alex Carey
Comments Off
July 4, 2010
Islamic Terrorists: Creating a Frankenstein monster
Back in approximately 1528, when the very first black man was snatched from a village in Africa and shoved onto a slave ship, somehow a ball got rolling that has consequences even down to this day. That single act of brutality began a long, slow process that eventually resulted in the proliferation of violence and crime in America’s inner cities four centuries later.
Cruelty always gets the ball rolling, gets the party started — but in a bad way.
So. What cruelties, exactly, got the Islamic terrorist ball rolling? Was it when Mohammad (PBUH) wrote the Qu’ran? And if it was, then why aren’t most American Muslims now terrorists too? And why don’t their teenagers run in violent gangs like so many Christian teenagers here do? Dearborn, in Michigan, for instance, has a very large Muslim population and the largest mosque in America. So why aren’t the Muslims of Dearborn all terrorists? Obviously it’s not their religion per se that is turning Muslims into terrorists. So it must be something else.
“But what could it be?” you might ask. I think you could get an answer to that question from any competent psychologist since Freud. Terrorists aren’t shaped by their religion. And terrorist aren’t just born that way either. Terrorists are created by their childhood experiences. Terrorists are created by cruelty.
Take Afghanistan for instance — a country that’s known for its terrorists. Those terrorists didn’t just suddenly spring full-grown from the head of Zeus. No, they were systematically created by centuries of systematic cruelty.
First the Brits brutally invaded Afghanistan. Then the Russians brutally invaded Afghanistan. Then the Americans brutally invaded Afghanistan. Brutality. Cruelty. Injustice. And now we wonder why that poor country is overrun with terrorists? Duh.
And then there’s Iraq. The Brits systematically destroyed democracy in Iraq. And Americans gave Iraq three gifts that kept on giving: Saddam Hussein, Shock and Awe and Abu Ghraib. In Iraq, Brits, Americans and their European allies created a Frankenstein monster — step by step, day by day.
And during approximately the last 90 years, Palestine has been systematically invaded by various forms of Europeans — not to mention the Crusades. Whether it was Lord Balfour, King Richard or David Ben Gurion who invaded the Holy Land, these Europeans have all worked really hard to create Frankenstein monsters in Palestine too — and America to this day still keeps footing these invaders’ bills.
Sure, a few Palestinians have hijacked some airplanes in protest — but Europeans and Americans have hijacked their entire region.
And remember how British Petroleum and the CIA worked in tandem to violently destroy democracy in Iran and to replace it with the West’s own bloody Shah, king of torture?
Face it, guys. The whole Middle East has been under the jackboots of American and European colonialism, imperialism and cruelty for a long, long, long time. And, keeping that thought in mind, you might also consider the suggestion that perhaps we are looking at Islamic terrorists from the wrong perspective. Perhaps if it hadn’t been for the calming and civilizing influences of Islam, all these Frankenstein monsters that the West has cheerfully created in the Middle East might have turned out even worse.
Consider what happened when Europe and America unleashed their cruelty on the Congo, Rwanda and Zimbabwe. At least the Middle East didn’t turn out as badly as all that. Maybe Islam actually helped give Muslims something hopeful to cling to in the face of all that Shock and Awe.
PS: As you may have already noticed unless you’re brain-dead or watch Fox News, the military-corporatist structure that brought us Rwanda, Afghanistan and Abu Ghraib is still in the driver’s seat in Washington now and still happily doing all its usual cruel nasty stuff. Which can only make me wonder — as our democracy dies and so does our economy — what kind of Frankenstein monsters are they happily creating here at home too?
PPS: And what, exactly, is the justification for all this cruelty? Apparently the justification is greed. Geez Louise! Just how many extra yachts do you guys need? Is it true that Dick Cheney is the world’s first trillionaire? And has all this endless supply of big bucks flowing seamlessly into his coffers from faulty oil platforms and endless wars made HIM happy? Yeah right.
PPPS: I am assuming that you do know that the oil spill in the Gulf could be worse than anything even the most fiendish terrorists could ever have done to us, right?
I just read somewhere that there are billions of teeny-tiny little crustaceans in our oceans and they are using all that excess carbon dioxide in sea water (which would otherwise be harmful to us) to build their sweet little teeny-tiny shells. And if they didn’t build these shells, there would be too much carbon dioxide in the oceans, it would be released into the air and we would all die. So if the oil spill kills off all these cute little guys in the same way that it is now killing off dolphins and turtles, we will be doomed.
To quote Wilbur the talking pig, “I don’t wanna die!”
And speaking of pigs at county fairs, me and my family are going off to the Alameda County Fair next Wednesday. Joe and Ashley are going to buy me a chicken — to eat all the snails in my postage-stamp-sized yard so that I can plant a victory garden. I’ll let you know how that goes.
Comments Off
July 3, 2010
67 Americans who will not be celebrating the 4th of July
Author’s note: Seems like the wars are not getting much attention, but each of these 67 families deserve that.
Excerpt:
67 Americans will not be celebrating the 4th of July, and 67 families will grieve a loved one this holiday, because of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The pentagon has released the names of 67 Americans who have died in June, bringing the total U.S. casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan this year to 203.
While Americans are understandably concerned with the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, a stagnant economy and a plethora of other issues, the two ongoing wars seem to get little attention in the media. The members of the armed services who put their lives on the line and make the ultimate sacrifice seem to be getting less and less attention.
It is a safe assumption that most Americans who have been paying attention to the news put forth by the corporate media do not how many service members died in June, and even fewer know their names. This article may be long, but that is because the list of young Americans who have made the ultimate sacrifice to their country is long. The list will get longer until Americans demand an end to these wars. If you cannot take the time to read each name, then ask yourself if it was worth it for each one of these young people to give their lives.
To whom it may concern, here are their names and some details about each one of them: (see link)
Many Americans voted for a leader that promised to bring an end to the wars, yet nothing substantive has been done toward that end. Meanwhile, the corporate media buries news about the wars, leaving these brave young men and women to die with a hardly a mention to their names. They deserve more. We as a nation deserve more.
Our young people are not fighting a foreign enemy bent on invading our homeland, they are occupying the homeland of other nations and are paying for that with their lives. Meanwhile our homeland and our economy is being destroyed by the very corporations that reap the profits from these wars and from the reckless spending of our tax dollars that finance the wars. BP, for instance, holds more than $2 billion in annual US defense contracts and continues to be the premiere provider of fuel to the world’s largest consumer of oil and gas: the pentagon.
Perhaps the best way to support our troops is to bring them home. And the best way to protect America may be to protect our borders, our shorelines and our economy by focusing our resources on solutions to the problems that we have here in the US, not occupying and rebuilding other nations halfway across the globe.
Read more here: Madison Independent Examiner – 67 Americans who will not be celebrating the 4th of July
Comments Off
July 2, 2010
Arnieville: Cutting CA home care will cost us six times as much
If you walk or drive down Adeline Street in south Berkeley right now, you will see dozens of disabled people camping out on the median strip in the middle of the street. “We call this place Arnieville,” I was told. That, however, is not breaking news. That story has already been covered on TV.
People on crutches and in wheelchairs are out in force, protesting a whole bunch of huge new state budget cuts to their home-care provider’s salaries. These care providers allow disabled Californians to live on their own. The disabled protesters have been camping out in protest against these radical and life-endangering cuts since June 22, 2010. But that’s not hot news either.
The disabled campers are holding a press conference over the Fourth of July weekend. Is that going to be big news too? Probably not. Nor is it breaking news that someone just dropped off a homemade blackberry pie for the disabled protesters to eat as they camped. But it was good news for me! My two-year-old granddaughter Mena got a slice of the pie — and she also got a ride on one disabled camper’s wheelchair. Mena thought that was totally cool. But then she didn’t have to be confined to a wheelchair and totally dependent on her home care provider seven days a week for the rest of her life.
Disabled people are the most courageous people I know.
However, one disabled person disagreed with me regarding wheelchairs. “We are not ‘confined’ to our wheelchairs per se,” she said. “Actually, our wheelchairs liberate us and give us freedom. Without them, we would be forced to spend our lives just lying in bed.” I don’t think that Mena would like that either. And using one’s wheelchair to give oneself freedom is a truly appropriate way to celebrate Independence on the Fourth of July — far more appropriate than Washington’s many attempts in the last ten years to disable the United States Constitution.
Perhaps it is breaking news that people in wheelchairs and with other disabilities are building a life-sized paper mache statue of Arnold Schwarzenegger right here on Adeline Street today. Or perhaps not.
It might be sort of newsworthy that a few dozen disabled people are now out here struggling to keep their protest going, to take care of their camp and to take care of themselves when most of them are physically incapacitated — up to 80 or 90%. Please! If there are any civic-minded young and strong volunteers out there who can come down and lend a hand at keeping the camp running, you will be totally welcome.
“Can I help do the dishes or something?” I asked one of the organizers, a woman with an obvious degenerative disease. “Oh, that’s okay,” she replied, perhaps worried that I didn’t look much stronger or energetic than she did.
No, it’s not news that I’m not as able to do the heavy lifting needed at Arnieville as the Governator himself would be. “Hey Arnie! Come down here and help us pitch some tents!”
What really was the breaking hot news at Arnieville today was when my neighbor Jana Ovebo drove up in her wheelchair and said, “If the state eliminates our home care workers as planned, then I will have to be institutionalized — just in order to survive.” Jana has had rheumatoid arthritis since she was nine years old and can barely even move by herself. And yet she still manages to run her own business, Disability, Resources, Exchange & Mobility Supports (DREAMS). And she still manages to come down to Arnieville and protest.
“The cost of my care if I was institutionalized,” stated Jana, “would be SIX TIMES more than what the state is now paying for home care providers.” Without her home-care workers, Jana would either have to be immediately institutionalized or be allowed to die on the street. Either choice sucks eggs.
And one home-care provider involved in the protest just informed me that, “It’s not only our salaries that are at stake: The Terminator is also trying to eliminate 40% of state funding for the entire disabilities program. This would knock thousands of people off the program all together. Then there’s the cuts to Medi-Cal, Adult Day Health and other services that keep seniors and people with disabilities in their communities.” And these people would also have to be institutionalized at six times the cost of what we are paying now? Yikes!
Hurray for Arnieville! That’s the GOOD news.
Comments Off
July 1, 2010
As hurricane Alex whips up Gulf waters, BP disaster planning does not account for storms
Author’s note: Duhhoooh!
Excerpt:
Hurricane Alex has whipped up waves as high as 7 feet that are washing oil over booms on the Gulf coast and driving oily water ashore and into marshes.
BP’s plan on file with the federal government for dealing with an oil spill in the Gulf, meanwhile, takes into account the potential impact on walruses, but not the potential impact of a hurricane or even a tropical storm.
One small problem with that – there are no walruses in the Gulf of Mexico, but tropical storms and hurricanes occur there regularily.
How stupid could BP and the federal officials at the Minerals and Management Service (MMS) who accepted this plan be? Are they on crack? That’s a rhetorical question, as investigations have shown that MMS officials have accepted bribes from oil company lobbyists that included cocaine, meth and hookers, when they were not watching porn on their taxpayer-financed PCs.
As Hurricane Alex moved through the Gulf on Wednesday, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) issued a sharply-worded press release and fired off a letter to BP asking why it had overlooked the possibility of contending with a spill in the middle of a hurricane or storm.
Here is a point that Markey made in his press release:
The BP plan had walruses in the Gulf, but no hurricanes, said Rep. Markey….Walruses haven’t been in the Gulf in a few million years, while a hurricane is just a few hundred miles from the spill site right now. This is yet another example of BP serial complacency.
At an Energy and Environment Subcommittee hearing on June 15th, Chairman Markey and others revealed that the major oil companies had response plans that were 90 percent identical, and included references to walruses in the Gulf of Mexico, and emergency contact information for long-deceased experts. The CEOs of the major oil companies testifying admitted that their response plans contained significant flaws, calling them an “embarrassment.”
The BP response plan uses the word “weather” in several instances, but never does so in an analysis of extreme weather that could markedly affect response capabilities.
There are six more questions that Markey asked BP America CEO Lamar McKay. Hit this link and read them.
This is not just another example of BP’s utter failure to prepare for real contingencies such as a disaster like this, it is also a failure of the federal government to properly regulate the industry. Prepared for walruses, but not a storm in the Gulf!?! One does not have to be a meteorologist to know that major storms regularily hit the Gulf of Mexico and that any spill response plan ought to take that into account. Yet no one in the U.S. government required BP to plan for that, and of course, BP did not do that on their own.
That is so ludicrous that even a fiction writer would think it has no plausibility, yet it is a sad reality for millions of Gulf residents.
Read more and get links here: Madison Independent Examiner – As hurricane Alex whips up Gulf waters, BP disaster planning does not account for storms
“War is Making You Poor” act would mean no federal income tax for most Americans
Author’s note: This is a rehash of an article I did in May, but since it seems to be getting no media attention, I am doing it again. I wonder how most Americans would respond to headline like this in the mainstream media…
Excerpt:
On Tuesday, another congressman, John Conyers, co-sponsored a bill, H.R. 5353, that was introduced in the House in May that would eliminate the federal income tax on the first $35,000 of all Americans’ earnings.
That means every individual earning $35K per year or less would pay no federal income tax, which includes most Americans. Furthermore, those earning more than $35K per year would pay taxes only on the amount in excess, and married couples earning up to $70K per year would also get the tax break on their first $35K of earnings.
The bill proposes to compensate for the loss in revenue by cutting $159.3 billion in supplemental war funding, thereby limiting defense spending to $548.9 billion: the exact figure alloted in the fiscal year 2011 budget.
H.R. 5353, known as the War is Making You Poor Act, is sponsored by Florida congressman Alan Grayson (D-8th District). The bill is now co-sponsored by Reps. John Conyers (D-MI), Walter Jones (R-NC), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Ron Paul (R-TX) and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).
In a speech on the House floor on May 20, Grayson stated that the bill would do three things. Firstly, it forces the Pentagon to pay for the wars out of the $549 billion already allocated in the defense budget. Secondly, it enables 90% of the savings from $159 billion in supplemental war spending to cover the cost of making the first $35K of every Americans’ earnings ($70K for married couples) free from federal income tax. Thirdly, it ultimately reduces federal spending and the deficit because the remaining 10% would be applied to that, and rather than borrowing money to pay for the wars that have no financial return of investment, the money saved by taxpayers can be spent to help stimulate the economy.
It may be unlikely that this bill will actually become law – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has already declared her opposition to the bill, along with four prominent Republicans in the House. A House vote on this legislation, however, would force any legislator that votes against it into what can also be construed as a vote against lowering taxes, against reducing federal spending and against reducing the deficit. At the very least, it illustrates to Americans how much the wars cost in terms of their tax dollars.
Read more, get links and video here: Madison Independent Examiner – “War is Making You Poor” act would mean no federal income tax for most Americans
Comments Off
War Casualty?
Are America’s homeless additional victims of the Bush wars?