info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Vote all you want. The secret government won't change.
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Peter Blunt
Oct 19, 2016, 10:10:25 PM10/19/16
to
THE VOTERS WHO put Barack Obama in office expected some big
changes. From the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping to Guantanamo
Bay to the Patriot Act, candidate Obama was a defender of civil
liberties and privacy, promising a dramatically different
approach from his predecessor.
But six years into his administration, the Obama version of
national security looks almost indistinguishable from the one he
inherited. Guantanamo Bay remains open. The NSA has, if
anything, become more aggressive in monitoring Americans. Drone
strikes have escalated. Most recently it was reported that the
same president who won a Nobel Prize in part for promoting
nuclear disarmament is spending up to $1 trillion modernizing
and revitalizing America’s nuclear weapons.
Why did the face in the Oval Office change but the policies
remain the same? Critics tend to focus on Obama himself, a
leader who perhaps has shifted with politics to take a harder
line. But Tufts University political scientist Michael J.
Glennon has a more pessimistic answer: Obama couldn’t have
changed policies much even if he tried.
Though it’s a bedrock American principle that citizens can steer
their own government by electing new officials, Glennon suggests
that in practice, much of our government no longer works that
way. In a new book, “National Security and Double Government,”
he catalogs the ways that the defense and national security
apparatus is effectively self-governing, with virtually no
accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any
kind. He uses the term “double government”: There’s the one we
elect, and then there’s the one behind it, steering huge swaths
of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as
mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.
Glennon cites the example of Obama and his team being shocked
and angry to discover upon taking office that the military gave
them only two options for the war in Afghanistan: The United
States could add more troops, or the United States could add a
lot more troops. Hemmed in, Obama added 30,000 more troops.
Glennon’s critique sounds like an outsider’s take, even a
radical one. In fact, he is the quintessential insider: He was
legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a
consultant to various congressional committees, as well as to
the State Department. “National Security and Double Government”
comes favorably blurbed by former members of the Defense
Department, State Department, White House, and even the CIA. And
he’s not a conspiracy theorist: Rather, he sees the problem as
one of “smart, hard-working, public-spirited people acting in
good faith who are responding to systemic incentives”—without
any meaningful oversight to rein them in.
How exactly has double government taken hold? And what can be
done about it? Glennon spoke with Ideas from his office at
Tufts’ Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. This interview has
been condensed and edited.
IDEAS: Where does the term “double government” come from?
GLENNON:It comes from Walter Bagehot’s famous theory, unveiled
in the 1860s. Bagehot was the scholar who presided over the
birth of the Economist magazine—they still have a column named
after him. Bagehot tried to explain in his book “The English
Constitution” how the British government worked. He suggested
that there are two sets of institutions. There are the
“dignified institutions,” the monarchy and the House of Lords,
which people erroneously believed ran the government. But he
suggested that there was in reality a second set of
institutions, which he referred to as the “efficient
institutions,” that actually set governmental policy. And those
were the House of Commons, the prime minister, and the British
cabinet.
IDEAS: What evidence exists for saying America has a double
government?
GLENNON:I was curious why a president such as Barack Obama would
embrace the very same national security and counterterrorism
policies that he campaigned eloquently against. Why would that
president continue those same policies in case after case after
case? I initially wrote it based on my own experience and
personal knowledge and conversations with dozens of individuals
in the military, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies of
our government, as well as, of course, officeholders on Capitol
Hill and in the courts. And the documented evidence in the book
is substantial—there are 800 footnotes in the book.
IDEAS: Why would policy makers hand over the national-security
keys to unelected officials?
GLENNON: It hasn’t been a conscious decision....Members of
Congress are generalists and need to defer to experts within the
national security realm, as elsewhere. They are particularly
concerned about being caught out on a limb having made a wrong
judgment about national security and tend, therefore, to defer
to experts, who tend to exaggerate threats. The courts similarly
tend to defer to the expertise of the network that defines
national security policy.
The presidency itself is not a top-down institution, as many
people in the public believe, headed by a president who gives
orders and causes the bureaucracy to click its heels and salute.
National security policy actually bubbles up from within the
bureaucracy. Many of the more controversial policies, from the
mining of Nicaragua’s harbors to the NSA surveillance program,
originated within the bureaucracy. John Kerry was not
exaggerating when he said that some of those programs are “on
autopilot.”
IDEAS: Isn’t this just another way of saying that big
bureaucracies are difficult to change?
GLENNON: It’s much more serious than that. These particular
bureaucracies don’t set truck widths or determine railroad
freight rates. They make nerve-center security decisions that in
a democracy can be irreversible, that can close down the
marketplace of ideas, and can result in some very dire
consequences.
IDEAS: Couldn’t Obama’s national-security decisions just result
from the difference in vantage point between being a campaigner
and being the commander-in-chief, responsible for 320 million
lives?
GLENNON: There is an element of what you described. There is not
only one explanation or one cause for the amazing continuity of
American national security policy. But obviously there is
something else going on when policy after policy after policy
all continue virtually the same way that they were in the George
W. Bush administration.
IDEAS: This isn’t how we’re taught to think of the American
political system.
GLENNON: I think the American people are deluded, as Bagehot
explained about the British population, that the institutions
that provide the public face actually set American national
security policy. They believe that when they vote for a
president or member of Congress or succeed in bringing a case
before the courts, that policy is going to change. Now, there
are many counter-examples in which these branches do affect
policy, as Bagehot predicted there would be. But the larger
picture is still true—policy by and large in the national
security realm is made by the concealed institutions.
IDEAS: Do we have any hope of fixing the problem?
GLENNON: The ultimate problem is the pervasive political
ignorance on the part of the American people. And indifference
to the threat that is emerging from these concealed
institutions. That is where the energy for reform has to come
from: the American people. Not from government. Government is
very much the problem here. The people have to take the bull by
the horns. And that’s a very difficult thing to do, because the
ignorance is in many ways rational. There is very little profit
to be had in learning about, and being active about, problems
that you can’t affect, policies that you can’t change.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/10/18/vote-all-you-want-
the-secret-government-won-
change/jVSkXrENQlu8vNcBfMn9sL/story.html
changes. From the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping to Guantanamo
Bay to the Patriot Act, candidate Obama was a defender of civil
liberties and privacy, promising a dramatically different
approach from his predecessor.
But six years into his administration, the Obama version of
national security looks almost indistinguishable from the one he
inherited. Guantanamo Bay remains open. The NSA has, if
anything, become more aggressive in monitoring Americans. Drone
strikes have escalated. Most recently it was reported that the
same president who won a Nobel Prize in part for promoting
nuclear disarmament is spending up to $1 trillion modernizing
and revitalizing America’s nuclear weapons.
Why did the face in the Oval Office change but the policies
remain the same? Critics tend to focus on Obama himself, a
leader who perhaps has shifted with politics to take a harder
line. But Tufts University political scientist Michael J.
Glennon has a more pessimistic answer: Obama couldn’t have
changed policies much even if he tried.
Though it’s a bedrock American principle that citizens can steer
their own government by electing new officials, Glennon suggests
that in practice, much of our government no longer works that
way. In a new book, “National Security and Double Government,”
he catalogs the ways that the defense and national security
apparatus is effectively self-governing, with virtually no
accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any
kind. He uses the term “double government”: There’s the one we
elect, and then there’s the one behind it, steering huge swaths
of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as
mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.
Glennon cites the example of Obama and his team being shocked
and angry to discover upon taking office that the military gave
them only two options for the war in Afghanistan: The United
States could add more troops, or the United States could add a
lot more troops. Hemmed in, Obama added 30,000 more troops.
Glennon’s critique sounds like an outsider’s take, even a
radical one. In fact, he is the quintessential insider: He was
legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a
consultant to various congressional committees, as well as to
the State Department. “National Security and Double Government”
comes favorably blurbed by former members of the Defense
Department, State Department, White House, and even the CIA. And
he’s not a conspiracy theorist: Rather, he sees the problem as
one of “smart, hard-working, public-spirited people acting in
good faith who are responding to systemic incentives”—without
any meaningful oversight to rein them in.
How exactly has double government taken hold? And what can be
done about it? Glennon spoke with Ideas from his office at
Tufts’ Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. This interview has
been condensed and edited.
IDEAS: Where does the term “double government” come from?
GLENNON:It comes from Walter Bagehot’s famous theory, unveiled
in the 1860s. Bagehot was the scholar who presided over the
birth of the Economist magazine—they still have a column named
after him. Bagehot tried to explain in his book “The English
Constitution” how the British government worked. He suggested
that there are two sets of institutions. There are the
“dignified institutions,” the monarchy and the House of Lords,
which people erroneously believed ran the government. But he
suggested that there was in reality a second set of
institutions, which he referred to as the “efficient
institutions,” that actually set governmental policy. And those
were the House of Commons, the prime minister, and the British
cabinet.
IDEAS: What evidence exists for saying America has a double
government?
GLENNON:I was curious why a president such as Barack Obama would
embrace the very same national security and counterterrorism
policies that he campaigned eloquently against. Why would that
president continue those same policies in case after case after
case? I initially wrote it based on my own experience and
personal knowledge and conversations with dozens of individuals
in the military, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies of
our government, as well as, of course, officeholders on Capitol
Hill and in the courts. And the documented evidence in the book
is substantial—there are 800 footnotes in the book.
IDEAS: Why would policy makers hand over the national-security
keys to unelected officials?
GLENNON: It hasn’t been a conscious decision....Members of
Congress are generalists and need to defer to experts within the
national security realm, as elsewhere. They are particularly
concerned about being caught out on a limb having made a wrong
judgment about national security and tend, therefore, to defer
to experts, who tend to exaggerate threats. The courts similarly
tend to defer to the expertise of the network that defines
national security policy.
The presidency itself is not a top-down institution, as many
people in the public believe, headed by a president who gives
orders and causes the bureaucracy to click its heels and salute.
National security policy actually bubbles up from within the
bureaucracy. Many of the more controversial policies, from the
mining of Nicaragua’s harbors to the NSA surveillance program,
originated within the bureaucracy. John Kerry was not
exaggerating when he said that some of those programs are “on
autopilot.”
IDEAS: Isn’t this just another way of saying that big
bureaucracies are difficult to change?
GLENNON: It’s much more serious than that. These particular
bureaucracies don’t set truck widths or determine railroad
freight rates. They make nerve-center security decisions that in
a democracy can be irreversible, that can close down the
marketplace of ideas, and can result in some very dire
consequences.
IDEAS: Couldn’t Obama’s national-security decisions just result
from the difference in vantage point between being a campaigner
and being the commander-in-chief, responsible for 320 million
lives?
GLENNON: There is an element of what you described. There is not
only one explanation or one cause for the amazing continuity of
American national security policy. But obviously there is
something else going on when policy after policy after policy
all continue virtually the same way that they were in the George
W. Bush administration.
IDEAS: This isn’t how we’re taught to think of the American
political system.
GLENNON: I think the American people are deluded, as Bagehot
explained about the British population, that the institutions
that provide the public face actually set American national
security policy. They believe that when they vote for a
president or member of Congress or succeed in bringing a case
before the courts, that policy is going to change. Now, there
are many counter-examples in which these branches do affect
policy, as Bagehot predicted there would be. But the larger
picture is still true—policy by and large in the national
security realm is made by the concealed institutions.
IDEAS: Do we have any hope of fixing the problem?
GLENNON: The ultimate problem is the pervasive political
ignorance on the part of the American people. And indifference
to the threat that is emerging from these concealed
institutions. That is where the energy for reform has to come
from: the American people. Not from government. Government is
very much the problem here. The people have to take the bull by
the horns. And that’s a very difficult thing to do, because the
ignorance is in many ways rational. There is very little profit
to be had in learning about, and being active about, problems
that you can’t affect, policies that you can’t change.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/10/18/vote-all-you-want-
the-secret-government-won-
change/jVSkXrENQlu8vNcBfMn9sL/story.html
ho...@lightlink.com
Oct 20, 2016, 12:50:41 AM10/20/16
to
There has to be an AVENUE of change that the people can use.
Voting for the two halves of the existing secret government
is not it, it has to be a 'throw them all in jail' kind of approach
so that the new people that run for office haven't been prevetted
by the existing dual faced government or big money.
Good posting, thanks for writing it.
Homer
In alt.religion.scientology Peter Blunt <pbl...@masons.org> wrote:
> THE VOTERS WHO put Barack Obama in office expected some big
> changes. From the NSA?s warrantless wiretapping to Guantanamo
> elect, and then there?s the one behind it, steering huge swaths
> one of ?smart, hard-working, public-spirited people acting in
> good faith who are responding to systemic incentives??without
> been condensed and edited.
>
> IDEAS: Where does the term ?double government? come from?
>
> GLENNON:It comes from Walter Bagehot?s famous theory, unveiled
> after him. Bagehot tried to explain in his book ?The English
> Constitution? how the British government worked. He suggested
> institutions,? that actually set governmental policy. And those
> autopilot.?
>
> IDEAS: Isn?t this just another way of saying that big
> bureaucracies don?t set truck widths or determine railroad
>
>
> https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/10/18/vote-all-you-want-
> the-secret-government-won-
> change/jVSkXrENQlu8vNcBfMn9sL/story.html
> ?
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
ho...@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
Voting for the two halves of the existing secret government
is not it, it has to be a 'throw them all in jail' kind of approach
so that the new people that run for office haven't been prevetted
by the existing dual faced government or big money.
Good posting, thanks for writing it.
Homer
In alt.religion.scientology Peter Blunt <pbl...@masons.org> wrote:
> THE VOTERS WHO put Barack Obama in office expected some big
> Bay to the Patriot Act, candidate Obama was a defender of civil
> liberties and privacy, promising a dramatically different
> approach from his predecessor.
>
> But six years into his administration, the Obama version of
> national security looks almost indistinguishable from the one he
> inherited. Guantanamo Bay remains open. The NSA has, if
> anything, become more aggressive in monitoring Americans. Drone
> strikes have escalated. Most recently it was reported that the
> same president who won a Nobel Prize in part for promoting
> nuclear disarmament is spending up to $1 trillion modernizing
> and revitalizing America?s nuclear weapons.
> liberties and privacy, promising a dramatically different
> approach from his predecessor.
>
> But six years into his administration, the Obama version of
> national security looks almost indistinguishable from the one he
> inherited. Guantanamo Bay remains open. The NSA has, if
> anything, become more aggressive in monitoring Americans. Drone
> strikes have escalated. Most recently it was reported that the
> same president who won a Nobel Prize in part for promoting
> nuclear disarmament is spending up to $1 trillion modernizing
>
> Why did the face in the Oval Office change but the policies
> remain the same? Critics tend to focus on Obama himself, a
> leader who perhaps has shifted with politics to take a harder
> line. But Tufts University political scientist Michael J.
> Glennon has a more pessimistic answer: Obama couldn?t have
> Why did the face in the Oval Office change but the policies
> remain the same? Critics tend to focus on Obama himself, a
> leader who perhaps has shifted with politics to take a harder
> line. But Tufts University political scientist Michael J.
> changed policies much even if he tried.
>
> Though it?s a bedrock American principle that citizens can steer
>
> their own government by electing new officials, Glennon suggests
> that in practice, much of our government no longer works that
> way. In a new book, ?National Security and Double Government,?
> that in practice, much of our government no longer works that
> he catalogs the ways that the defense and national security
> apparatus is effectively self-governing, with virtually no
> accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any
> kind. He uses the term ?double government?: There?s the one we
> apparatus is effectively self-governing, with virtually no
> accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any
> elect, and then there?s the one behind it, steering huge swaths
> of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as
> mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.
>
> Glennon cites the example of Obama and his team being shocked
> and angry to discover upon taking office that the military gave
> them only two options for the war in Afghanistan: The United
> States could add more troops, or the United States could add a
> lot more troops. Hemmed in, Obama added 30,000 more troops.
>
> Glennon?s critique sounds like an outsider?s take, even a
> mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.
>
> Glennon cites the example of Obama and his team being shocked
> and angry to discover upon taking office that the military gave
> them only two options for the war in Afghanistan: The United
> States could add more troops, or the United States could add a
> lot more troops. Hemmed in, Obama added 30,000 more troops.
>
> radical one. In fact, he is the quintessential insider: He was
> legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a
> consultant to various congressional committees, as well as to
> the State Department. ?National Security and Double Government?
> legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a
> consultant to various congressional committees, as well as to
> comes favorably blurbed by former members of the Defense
> Department, State Department, White House, and even the CIA. And
> he?s not a conspiracy theorist: Rather, he sees the problem as
> Department, State Department, White House, and even the CIA. And
> one of ?smart, hard-working, public-spirited people acting in
> good faith who are responding to systemic incentives??without
> any meaningful oversight to rein them in.
>
> How exactly has double government taken hold? And what can be
> done about it? Glennon spoke with Ideas from his office at
> Tufts? Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. This interview has
>
> How exactly has double government taken hold? And what can be
> done about it? Glennon spoke with Ideas from his office at
> been condensed and edited.
>
> IDEAS: Where does the term ?double government? come from?
>
> GLENNON:It comes from Walter Bagehot?s famous theory, unveiled
> in the 1860s. Bagehot was the scholar who presided over the
> birth of the Economist magazine?they still have a column named
> after him. Bagehot tried to explain in his book ?The English
> Constitution? how the British government worked. He suggested
> that there are two sets of institutions. There are the
> ?dignified institutions,? the monarchy and the House of Lords,
> which people erroneously believed ran the government. But he
> suggested that there was in reality a second set of
> institutions, which he referred to as the ?efficient
> suggested that there was in reality a second set of
> institutions,? that actually set governmental policy. And those
> were the House of Commons, the prime minister, and the British
> cabinet.
>
> IDEAS: What evidence exists for saying America has a double
> government?
>
> GLENNON:I was curious why a president such as Barack Obama would
> embrace the very same national security and counterterrorism
> policies that he campaigned eloquently against. Why would that
> president continue those same policies in case after case after
> case? I initially wrote it based on my own experience and
> personal knowledge and conversations with dozens of individuals
> in the military, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies of
> our government, as well as, of course, officeholders on Capitol
> Hill and in the courts. And the documented evidence in the book
> is substantial?there are 800 footnotes in the book.
> cabinet.
>
> IDEAS: What evidence exists for saying America has a double
> government?
>
> GLENNON:I was curious why a president such as Barack Obama would
> embrace the very same national security and counterterrorism
> policies that he campaigned eloquently against. Why would that
> president continue those same policies in case after case after
> case? I initially wrote it based on my own experience and
> personal knowledge and conversations with dozens of individuals
> in the military, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies of
> our government, as well as, of course, officeholders on Capitol
> Hill and in the courts. And the documented evidence in the book
>
> IDEAS: Why would policy makers hand over the national-security
> keys to unelected officials?
>
> GLENNON: It hasn?t been a conscious decision....Members of
> IDEAS: Why would policy makers hand over the national-security
> keys to unelected officials?
>
> Congress are generalists and need to defer to experts within the
> national security realm, as elsewhere. They are particularly
> concerned about being caught out on a limb having made a wrong
> judgment about national security and tend, therefore, to defer
> to experts, who tend to exaggerate threats. The courts similarly
> tend to defer to the expertise of the network that defines
> national security policy.
>
> The presidency itself is not a top-down institution, as many
> people in the public believe, headed by a president who gives
> orders and causes the bureaucracy to click its heels and salute.
> National security policy actually bubbles up from within the
> bureaucracy. Many of the more controversial policies, from the
> mining of Nicaragua?s harbors to the NSA surveillance program,
> national security realm, as elsewhere. They are particularly
> concerned about being caught out on a limb having made a wrong
> judgment about national security and tend, therefore, to defer
> to experts, who tend to exaggerate threats. The courts similarly
> tend to defer to the expertise of the network that defines
> national security policy.
>
> The presidency itself is not a top-down institution, as many
> people in the public believe, headed by a president who gives
> orders and causes the bureaucracy to click its heels and salute.
> National security policy actually bubbles up from within the
> bureaucracy. Many of the more controversial policies, from the
> originated within the bureaucracy. John Kerry was not
> exaggerating when he said that some of those programs are ?on
> autopilot.?
>
> IDEAS: Isn?t this just another way of saying that big
> bureaucracies are difficult to change?
>
> GLENNON: It?s much more serious than that. These particular
>
> bureaucracies don?t set truck widths or determine railroad
> freight rates. They make nerve-center security decisions that in
> a democracy can be irreversible, that can close down the
> marketplace of ideas, and can result in some very dire
> consequences.
>
> IDEAS: Couldn?t Obama?s national-security decisions just result
> a democracy can be irreversible, that can close down the
> marketplace of ideas, and can result in some very dire
> consequences.
>
> from the difference in vantage point between being a campaigner
> and being the commander-in-chief, responsible for 320 million
> lives?
>
> GLENNON: There is an element of what you described. There is not
> only one explanation or one cause for the amazing continuity of
> American national security policy. But obviously there is
> something else going on when policy after policy after policy
> all continue virtually the same way that they were in the George
> W. Bush administration.
>
> IDEAS: This isn?t how we?re taught to think of the American
> and being the commander-in-chief, responsible for 320 million
> lives?
>
> GLENNON: There is an element of what you described. There is not
> only one explanation or one cause for the amazing continuity of
> American national security policy. But obviously there is
> something else going on when policy after policy after policy
> all continue virtually the same way that they were in the George
> W. Bush administration.
>
> political system.
>
> GLENNON: I think the American people are deluded, as Bagehot
> explained about the British population, that the institutions
> that provide the public face actually set American national
> security policy. They believe that when they vote for a
> president or member of Congress or succeed in bringing a case
> before the courts, that policy is going to change. Now, there
> are many counter-examples in which these branches do affect
> policy, as Bagehot predicted there would be. But the larger
> picture is still true?policy by and large in the national
>
> GLENNON: I think the American people are deluded, as Bagehot
> explained about the British population, that the institutions
> that provide the public face actually set American national
> security policy. They believe that when they vote for a
> president or member of Congress or succeed in bringing a case
> before the courts, that policy is going to change. Now, there
> are many counter-examples in which these branches do affect
> policy, as Bagehot predicted there would be. But the larger
> security realm is made by the concealed institutions.
>
> IDEAS: Do we have any hope of fixing the problem?
>
> GLENNON: The ultimate problem is the pervasive political
> ignorance on the part of the American people. And indifference
> to the threat that is emerging from these concealed
> institutions. That is where the energy for reform has to come
> from: the American people. Not from government. Government is
> very much the problem here. The people have to take the bull by
> the horns. And that?s a very difficult thing to do, because the
>
> IDEAS: Do we have any hope of fixing the problem?
>
> GLENNON: The ultimate problem is the pervasive political
> ignorance on the part of the American people. And indifference
> to the threat that is emerging from these concealed
> institutions. That is where the energy for reform has to come
> from: the American people. Not from government. Government is
> very much the problem here. The people have to take the bull by
> ignorance is in many ways rational. There is very little profit
> to be had in learning about, and being active about, problems
> that you can?t affect, policies that you can?t change.
> to be had in learning about, and being active about, problems
>
>
> https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/10/18/vote-all-you-want-
> the-secret-government-won-
> change/jVSkXrENQlu8vNcBfMn9sL/story.html
> ?
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
ho...@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
Jeßus
Oct 20, 2016, 2:32:14 AM10/20/16
to
situation. This is a problem that affects many countries (I am not in
the U.S). If only the average person would finally wake up and see the
obvious.
0 new messages