TPTB Moves Toward Martial Law

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

TPTB Moves Toward Martial Law

Postby yesferatu » Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:05 pm

Bush Moves Toward Martial Law<br>Frank Morales<br><br>October 26, 2006<br><br>In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.<br><br>Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."<br><br>President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."<br><br>Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."<br><br>For the current President, "enforcement of the laws to restore public order" means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.<br><br><snip><br><br><br>In other words, the law facilitates the "transfer" of the newest in so-called "crowd control" technology and other weaponry designed to suppress dissent from the Pentagon to local militarized police units. The new law builds on and further codifies earlier "technology transfer" agreements, specifically the 1995 DOD-Justice Department memorandum of agreement achieved back during the Clinton-Reno regime.(4)<br><br>It has become clear in recent months that <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>a critical mass of the American people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->; with the president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq, and the Democrats likely to take back the Congress in mid-term elections, the Bush administration is on the ropes. And so it is particularly worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect, declare himself dictator.>><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.uruknet.biz/?p=m27769&hd=0&size=1&l=e">here</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>Speaking of critical mass, a judge has ordered the release of the abu ghraib tapes Sy Hersh referred to where boys being raped is recorded on the soundtrack.<br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.correntewire.com/republican_people_of_the_lie_must_disgorge_the_abu_ghraib_child_rape_photos_videos_judge_rules">here</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>I edited the title and switched "Bush" with "TPTB" since it is clear Bush is just a monkey.<br>It needs to be pointed out that this bill passed with unanimous consent in the Senate, and in the House 398-23.<br>Looks less and less likely a transfer of power in '08. <br>And yet the dems will continue voting with the Monkey on this fascist timetable..... I guess they believe the fascists in power are doing this to benefit a possible democrat prez in case a dem should win the WH. They can't figure out the simplest lessons of history. When power on this scale is GRABBED, it is not let go of. It just isn't. But the morons keep enabling, either because they are too f'n dense to have it sink in, or there is an agreement and agenda among all of them that makes our lil' ol' 'spiracies look like childs play, and would turn our hair white if we found out. I opt to believe they are f'n morons marching us to a bloody crisis. But this certainly makes it less likely there will be an "american election" in '08. <br>As far as the election in one month, I agree with Jeff that there will <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>juuuuuust</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> be enough dem "counterbalance" to continue the illusion of checks and balances. Allowed.<br>And then..... <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=yesferatu@rigorousintuition>yesferatu</A> at: 10/28/06 7:28 pm<br></i>
yesferatu
 

Re: Bush Moves Toward Martial Law

Postby Iroquois » Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:12 pm

The current US Code:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES<br> <br> Subtitle A--General Military Law<br> <br> PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS<br> <br> <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>CHAPTER 15--INSURRECTION</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br> <br>Sec. 333. Interference with State and Federal law<br><br> The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or <br>by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary <br>to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful <br>combination, or conspiracy, if it--<br> (1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of <br> the United States within the State, that any part or class of its <br> people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection <br> named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted <br> authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect <br> that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or<br> (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United <br> States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.<br><br>In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to <br>have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the <br>Constitution.<br><br>(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 15.)<br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->URL: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+10USC333">frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/...:+10USC333</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br>From the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>SEC. 1042. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.<br><br> (a) USE OF THE ARMED FORCES AUTHORIZED- <br><br> (1) IN GENERAL- Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:<br><br>`Sec. 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law<br><br> `(a) USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES- (1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--<br><br> `(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--<br><br> `(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and<br><br> `(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or<br><br> `(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).<br><br> `(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--<br><br> `(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or<br><br> `(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.<br><br> `(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.<br><br> `(b) NOTICE TO CONGRESS- The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of the authority.'.<br><br> (2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE- Section 334 of such title is amended by inserting `or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws' after `insurgents'.<br><br> (3) HEADING AMENDMENT- The heading of such 15 of such title is amended to read as follows:<br><br>`<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>CHAPTER 15--ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS TO RESTORE PUBLIC ORDER</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->'.<br><br> (4) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS- (A) The table of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, and at the beginning of part I of such subtitle, are each amended by striking the item relating to chapter 15 and inserting the following new item:<br><br>331'.<br><br> (B) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to sections 333 and inserting the following new item:<br><br> `333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law.'.<br><br> (b) PROVISION OF SUPPLIES, SERVICES, AND EQUIPMENT- <br><br> (1) IN GENERAL- Chapter 152 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following new section:<br><br>`Sec. 2567. Provision of supplies, services, and equipment in major public emergencies<br><br> `(a) PROVISION AUTHORIZED- In any situation in which the President determines to exercise the authority in section 333(a)(1)(A) of this title, the President may direct the Secretary of Defense to provide supplies, services, and equipment to persons affected by the situation.<br><br> `(b) COVERED SUPPLIES, SERVICES, AND EQUIPMENT- The supplies, services, and equipment provided under this section may include food, water, utilities, bedding, transportation, tentage, search and rescue, medical care, minor repairs, the removal of debris, and other assistance necessary for the immediate preservation of life and property.<br><br> `(c) LIMITATIONS- (1) Supplies, services, and equipment may be provided under this section--<br><br> `(A) only to the extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession concerned are unable to provide such supplies, services, and equipment, as the case may be; and<br><br> `(B) only until such authorities, or other departments or agencies of the United States charged with the provision of such supplies, services, and equipment, are able to provide such supplies, services, and equipment.<br><br> `(2) The Secretary may provide supplies, services, and equipment under this section only to the extent that the Secretary determines that doing so will not interfere with military preparedness or ongoing military operations or functions.<br><br> `(d) INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN AUTHORITIES- The provision of supplies, services, or equipment under this section shall not be subject to the provisions of section 403(c) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170b(c)).'.<br><br> (2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:<br><br> `2567. Provision of supplies, services, and equipment in major public emergencies.'.<br><br> (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS- Section 12304(c) of such title is amended--<br><br> (1) by striking paragraph (1); and<br><br> (2) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively.<br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->URL: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:5:./temp/~c1093U58Xp:e803409:">thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/qu...p:e803409:</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
Iroquois
 
Posts: 660
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 1:47 pm
Location: Michigan
Blog: View Blog (0)

President’s Inaction May Equal Pocket Veto

Postby * » Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:36 am

<br><br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>President’s Inaction May Equal Pocket Veto</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br>By brad<br><br>UPDATE: <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>H.R. 6166: Military Commissions Act of 2006<br>Military Commission Act Not Lawfully Passed<br><br>President’s Inaction Equals ‘Pocket Veto’</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br>by Pat Shannan<br><br>Talk show host Alex Jones’ brief interview last week with an unknown caller has sent constitutionists and legal researchers scurrying for the law books.<br><br>“The Military Commission Act is not law!” the man barked. “The ‘pocket veto’ clause of the constitution has already nullified it.”<br><br>He then pointed out to the national radio audience exactly what the part about “pocket veto” in Article One, Section 7 of the U. S. Constitution means. Indeed, it appears that President Bush’s signing of the infamous “6166,” which in effect eliminates the 4th Amendment protection of citizens in their homes and a whole lot more, is moot. He was too late.<br><br>Now Jones and many others are wondering, who in an official capacity is going to point this out and enforce it?<br><br>Here is what the law says and what happens when a sitting president sticks a bill passed by congress into his pocket instead of signing it and sending it back:<br><br>A Pocket Veto occurs when the President fails to sign a bill within the 10 days allowed by the Constitution.<br><br>Congress must be in adjournment in order for a pocket veto to take effect.<br><br>If Congress is in session and the president fails to sign the bill, it becomes law without his signature.<br><br>Now to the current specifics.<br><br>From the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 7: “…If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevents its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.”<br><br>Since Congress cannot vote while in adjournment, a pocket veto cannot be overridden. A pocket veto is a legislative maneuver in American federal lawmaking. The U.S. Constitution requires the President to sign or veto any legislation placed on his desk within ten days (not including Sundays). If he does not, then it becomes law by default. The one exception to this rule is if Congress adjourns before the ten days are up. In such a case, the bill does not become law; it is effectively, if not actually, vetoed. Ignoring legislation, or “putting a bill in one’s pocket” until Congress adjourns is thus called a pocket veto.<br><br>Congress passed 6166 on September 29th, presented it to the President on October 10th, and adjourned on October 13th. Bush signed it on October 17th, the week after Congress had adjourned, thereby rendering it “vetoed” by constitutional standards.<br><br>On September 6, 2006, President Bush asked Congress to pass the Military Commission Act of 2006. This Act – among other things – sought to re-define U.S. obligations under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, international treaties signed by every country in the world. Common Article 3 places an absolute prohibition on inhumane treatment of detainees during an armed conflict.<br><br>Specifically, the President wanted Congress to replace the absolute prohibition on inhumane treatment of Common Article 3 with a “flexible” standard, which would assess on a case-by-case basis whether particular conduct would amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Human Rights First criticized the Administration’s proposal for adding ambiguity to an otherwise clear standard of Common Article 3, and would open the door to more Abu Ghraib-style abuses.<br><br>In response to the administration’s proposal, more than 45 retired senior military leaders wrote to members of the U.S. Senate expressing their opposition to redefining Common Article 3 on the grounds that it would compromise the safety of U.S. Service men and women. They were joined by Former Secretary of State Colin Powell and former U.S. Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Vessey, Hugh Shelton, and William Crowe, who also sent letters expressing their opposition to redefining Common Article 3.<br><br>Spearheaded by Republican Senators John McCain, John Warner, and Lindsey Graham, the Senate Armed Services Committee passed an alternative bill, sponsored by McCain, Warner, and Graham, that preserves Common Article 3. The Administration then agreed to negotiate with the key Senators, and a compromise was reached on September 21, which preserved the meaning and requirements of Common Article 3. Human Rights First welcomed this aspect of the compromise. Human Rights First opposed the final version of the Military Commissions Act, however, because it contained a number of provisions that raised serious concerns about compliance with the Geneva Conventions and with fundamental fair trial and due process principles. Among the most troubling aspects of the Military Commissions Act are provisions that purport to:<br><br> * Grant unprecedented and unchecked authority to the Executive Branch to label as “unlawful enemy combatants”, and possibly to detain indefinitely, an overly broad range of people, including U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents inside the United States<br> * Deny independent judicial review, through habeas, of detentions of U.S. legal permanent residents and non-citizens<br> * Limit the sources of law to which the courts may look and the scope of review on appeal<br> * Narrow the scope of the War Crimes Act and seek to eliminate accountability for past violations of the law by the president and his administration.<br> * Permit evidence obtained through coercion to be used in the military commission proceedings, with certain limitations.<br> * Permit the introduction of classified evidence against the accused even if the accused has not had the opportunity to review and challenge the “sources, methods, or activities” by which the government acquired the evidence.<br> * Restrict full disclosure to the accused of exculpatory evidence<br> * Give the Secretary of Defense authority to deviate from time-tested military justice standards for fair trials<br><br>Courts have never fully clarified when an adjournment by Congress would “prevent” the President from returning a vetoed bill. Some Presidents have interpreted the Constitution to restrict the pocket veto to the adjournment sine die of Congress at the end of the second session of the two-year Congressional term, while others interpreted it to allow intersession and intrasession pocket vetoes. In 1929, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a bill had to be returned to the chamber while it is in session and capable of work. A three-day recess of the Senate was considered a short enough time that the Senate could still act with “reasonable promptitude” on the veto. However, a five-month adjournment would be a long enough period to enable a pocket veto. Within those constraints, there still exists some ambiguity; Presidents have been reluctant to pursue disputed pocket vetoes to the Supreme Court for fear of an adverse ruling that would serve as a precedent in future cases[1].<br><br>For matters regarding the authority of the federal government, the place to start the analysis is with the United States Code. In 1 U.S.C. § 106a, we find the following:<br><br>Section 106a. Promulgation of laws<br><br> Whenever a bill, order, resolution, or vote of the Senate and House of Representatives, having been approved by the President, or not having been returned by him with his objections, becomes a law or takes effect, it shall forthwith be received by the Archivist of the United States from the President; and whenever a bill, order, resolution, or vote is returned by the President with his objections, and, on being reconsidered, is agreed to be passed, and is approved by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, and thereby becomes a law or takes effect, it shall be received by the Archivist of the United States from the President of the Senate, or Speaker of the House of Representatives in whichsoever House it shall last have been so approved, and he shall carefully preserve the originals.<br><br>Attorney and constitutional expert Harmon Taylor of Dallas, Texas harbors some consternation about the federal courts disregarding the constitution in recent years and ruling on federal statutes and court precedent.He points out, “This language is curiously silent regarding the “10-day Rule” set forth in Art. I, § 7, cl. 2. It is also noticeably silent about adjournment and any effect that adjournment may have on the “’10-day Rule.’<br><br>”Therefore, the next source to check is judicial construction, and the best starting place for that is with Supreme Court opinions. While Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), specifically addresses and thwarts executive law-making efforts via the so-called “Line Item Veto,” and, so, is not directly on point with our current question, it’s very helpful on the applicability of Art. I, § 7, cl. 2, generally, thus, the “10-day Rule,” in particular. The Court cites the law-making procedure in full in n.28. Clinton, 524 U.S. at 438-39 n.28. Even more importantly, the Court identifies that the “veto” power being analyzed is read in terms of the whole context. This is the point raised by n.29.<br><br>Applying that to the present circumstance, it’s difficult to picture how the Supreme Court would read the whole of Art. I, § 7, cl. 2 for purposes of “veto” analysis but then read only part of it for purposes of a question under the “10-day Rule.” So, where all of Art. I, § 7, cl. 2 is material, then both the “10-day Rule” and “adjournment” are material procedural facts in determining whether an act by the “congress” and presented to the “president” actually produced federal law.”<br><br>Taylor also pointed out to us that a separate new question arises as to whether the congress may enact legislation inconsistent with the Geneva Conventions to which the federal government is a signatory. In the recent case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, __ U.S. __, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006), the Supreme Court clearly identified several variances between the “military commission” process being utilized by the present administration and the trial process contemplated by the Geneva Convention. Should it turn out that the most recent legislation implements that same, or a very similar, “military commission” trial process, already characterized by the Court as “illegal,” then the question arises as to whether legislation that strays from the Geneva Convention standards is federal law.<br><br>“The answer may seem intuitively obvious,” Taylor said, “but this one will take some additional study and reflection. Your conclusions are correct, constitutionally speaking,” he said, referring to President Bush’s delayed signing of the bill, “but you can bet that the Supreme Court, if it comes to that, will do everything it can to avoid making a constitutionally based decision.”<br><br>Indeed. Even as the most amateurish constitutional historians realize, we have not been able to keep the republic Ben Franklin feared we could not 220 years ago. Now it seems we may have to be concerned with that piece of philosophy from Mao — the one about “Power coming out of the barrel of a gun.”<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://electbarnhill.com/2006/10/24/presidents-inaction-may-equal-pocket-veto/">link</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
*
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 9:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

check this out from Dailykos

Postby maggrwaggr » Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:04 am

There's a very interesting recommended story today regarding this exact thing:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/28/155911/22">www.dailykos.com/storyonl.../155911/22</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>NV-SEN: Why I've just quit Jack Carter's campaign (it's OK, he'll still win) <br>by Greg at Carter for Nevada [Subscribe] <br>Sat Oct 28, 2006 at 12:59:11 PM PDT<br><br>I've just quit Jack Carter's campaign.  In fact, I will no longer be working to elect Democrats during this cycle.<br><br>Don't worry - it's not what it sounds like.  I've neither lost my ideals nor my mind.<br><br>I've quit because something more important has come up.  "More important than electing Democrats this year?"  Well, yes, hard as that may be to believe.  But it's more fair to say that my individual efforts over the next ten days are needed elsewhere.  I can do a little to help Jack Carter, or a lot to help protect our way of governing.<br><br>It has to do with the President's ability to declare martial law.<br><br>There's more on that - which requires my revealing my actual DKos identity - after the jump. <p></p><i></i>
maggrwaggr
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 4:59 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: President’s Inaction May Equal Pocket Veto

Postby DireStrike » Sun Oct 29, 2006 10:50 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>A Pocket Veto occurs when the President fails to sign a bill within the 10 days allowed by the Constitution.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>presented it to the President on October 10th, and adjourned on October 13th. Bush signed it on October 17th<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>october 17 - october 10 = 7 days<br>7 days < 10 days<br><br>= not pocket veto... <p></p><i></i>
DireStrike
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 2:42 pm
Location: NYC
Blog: View Blog (0)

actually

Postby * » Mon Oct 30, 2006 7:08 pm

<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/home/ds/h1092.html">congress adjourned</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> on September 29th.:rolleyes<br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
*
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 9:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to Deep Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest