Got the world in a jug, the stopper’s in my hand

If it had been a 10- or 11-foot gator, it might have been a different story.”

“Make sure you hang in there until the 1:50 mark to get the full pop-and-lock effect, along with some moonwalking in penny loafers.”

“Far too many churches are answering questions that few people are asking.”

“So, once again, they fail to understand the central meaning of their office: That they serve the church rather than rule it.”

That was like obstructing justice cubed.”

“I have decided that we will not participate in the collecting of signatures in our parish. Doing so would, I believe, prove hurtful and seriously divisive in our community.”

“It always falls back on the patient if the cure doesn’t work and that is where these therapies get cruel. They are trying to do something that is impossible and when it doesn’t work you get blamed for it.”

“I learned that the best way to destroy a prejudice was to have the courage to encounter those we have learned to prejudge.”

“Standing up for justice usually means confronting those who don’t know why they do what they do.”

“They used a deadly combination of trusting in their ability to sell the vividness of their own imaginations combined with a resolute refusal to look a fact in the face.”

I didn’t know it was against the law to vote.”

“If they are so convinced they are right on the issue, why must they lie about everything?”

“We live in a culture that values neither the career women nor the stay at home moms. Because women live lives that are considered public property, to be legislated and debated and discussed, rather than merely lived, there’s not a woman in the United States who is not facing criticism for her choices.”

“What was happening to these women was a human rights violation that the US government opposes when it is done to Afghan women.”

“On behalf of the great state of Oklahoma I want to take this opportunity to apologize.”

Before Social Security, people like Vincent were considered unpleasant accidents best kept out of the public eye and certainly undeserving of personhood status.”

This is not an exaggeration. Check it out yourself.”

“Ryan has every right to promote his budget as a good idea for the country. But let’s spare the crocodile tears for the poor whom he would liberate from “dependence,” and the abuse of social encyclicals to justify libertarian political philosophy.”

“The Affordable Care Act included provisions designed to help stop this scary trend — not just by expanding health care access (many maternal deaths could be prevented with proper care) — but also through the Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting program, created as part of ACA, which provides nurses and social workers to work with high-risk moms, starting before they give birth, to help them have healthy pregnancies and deliveries and support their babies’ health and development after birth.”

“We live in a country that where we routinely feed pigs and cows so much antibiotics that it’s big news when the FDA says we should maybe restrict the practice to animals that are actually, you know, sick, but a human being can die for lack of access to those same drugs.”

“If I had to pick a picture to illustrate the political economy of the United States over the last century, this would be the one.”

(Post title remembers Bessie Smith, Empress of the Blues, who was born April 15, 1894.)

  • EllieMurasaki

    It’s legal and constitutional for a person who gets a state paycheck to sexually assault a woman in zir custody? Fuck that.

    And the Ryan/Republican budget. The hell happened to the Preamble?

  • http://jesustheram.blogspot.com/ Mr. Heartland

    “If they are so convinced they are right on the issue, why must they lie about everything?”

    Because they see themselves as the walking incarnations of Rightness.  It isn’t a matter of being right because their statements are factually correct.  It is a matter of anything they happen to say being the Truth because they are the ones saying it.  Good ol Colbert magic is all. 

    * As an aside, I happened to overhear an abortion argument at an Occupy picnic earlier today.  The guy on the pro-life side gave the normal ‘abortion is murder’ yada yada and then he said something that kind of struck me.  ‘God put that baby there’ he said. 

    I mean, he was virtually stating in as many words that the penis is God.  It actually would have been much less disturbing if he had said so directly. 

  • Michael Pullmann

    I would also like to apologize for Oklahoma, except I include Garth Brooks in that apology. Really, we didn’t know he was going to do that, or we would have stopped him.

  • hidden_urchin

    It’s legal and constitutional for a person who gets a state paycheck to sexually assault a woman in zir custody?

    Well, if they were arrested then they clearly were guilty of a crime and so don’t deserve to be treated like anything other than the animals they are. /sarcasm

    You know?  I’m actually somewhat afraid of my own government and society at this point.   At worst, I can be arrested and be treated as if I am not worth being treated as a human being.  At best, if I play by the rules and am not falsely arrested, my body is treated as public property and I am considered unfit to make medical decisions without the interference of the state.  The problem is that our society is arrest-happy and there is not nearly enough oversight of police departments to make sure they get it right, so playing by the rules is no assurance of relative safety.

    Where did “We The People” go so wrong?

    Edit to add: I just want to make it clear that even if a person committed a crime that person should still be treated with dignity and respect. I reread my original post and didn’t think that came through strongly enough.

  • Tricksterson

    What did he do?

  • Tricksterson

    You really have to hit that second article.  And then go to Youtube and hit the version where “Single Ladies” is dubbed over it.  You have not lived til you’ve seen and heard that.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Who’s this “Ryan” dude anyway, and why is his name attached to a budget? It’s like people are presenting it as some kind of alternate universe budget in which some guy named Ryan somehow assumed the Presidency after McCain kicked it and Palin resigned.

  • AnonymousSam

    Holy what. Which article had that little piece of WTFery?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

    Paul Ryan is a Republican Congressman serving as the Representative for Wisconsin’s 1st district. His name is attached to the budget because he developed it and introduced it onto the floor of the House as his proposal for FY 2012.

    I don’t really understand what you mean by “as if Ryan somehow assumed the Presidency”. You don’t have to be President to introduce a budget. In fact, the Constitution specifically grants the power to create a budget to the House of Representatives, which Paul Ryan is in. The law requires the President to submit a budget request to the House of Representatives but that in no way prevents members of the House from developing their own budget requests. It doesn’t really suggest at all that Ryan is the President.

    (This doesn’t mean that Ryan’s budget isn’t a travesty, which it is, but there’s nothing weird about the idea that he has his own budget proposal. The weird part is that he’s apparently the only Congressperson with a budget proposal. I understand why Democrats aren’t bothering — they know that nothing productive is going to get done until the next elections — but several Republicans agree that Ryan’s budget proposal is a dishonest mess that throws everyone (except for the military) under the bus and they’re not even trying to gin up support for a counter-proposal.)

  • EllieMurasaki

    The one where the link says it’s a human rights violation that, when done to Afghan women, the US government opposes.

  • Lori

    The weird part is that he’s apparently the only Congressperson with a budget proposal. 

    This. There is no rational reason that we should still be discussing a Ryan budget. I’ve lost track of how many iterations the Ryan budget has gone through and they’re all terrible and unsupportable. In any reasonable world the GOP leadership would have benched Ryan and had someone else give it a go.

     

    I understand why Democrats aren’t bothering — they know that nothing productive is going to get done until the next elections — but several Republicans agree that Ryan’s budget proposal is a dishonest mess that throws everyone (except for the military) under the bus and they’re not even trying to gin up support for a counter-proposal.) 

    The insistence on marching in lockstep, even if it means going over a cliff is one of the modern GOP’s more infuriating traits.

  • hidden_urchin

    Apparently Michigan backed down a bit:
    http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/04/12/update-michigan-department-of-corrections-abandons-routine-body-cavity-searches/

    Of course, that doesn’t stop other places from doing it and it doesn’t mean that it won’t start up again when no one’s looking.  What is it people are always saying around here, “if it isn’t a right then it’s a privilege and can be taken away?”

    Yeah, I’m getting that distinct feeling from this whole affair.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    That’s the whole point. Why isn’t Obama calling his proposals the “Obama budget” and directly highlighting, in counterpoint, how his proposale make more sense than anything this Ryan dude crapped out?

    If the Repubs are effectively “owning” Ryan’s budget then the Dems should damn well “own” Obama’s budgetary proposals and try some pushback. It’s like how the Repubs smeared the ACA calling it “Obamacare” and ginning up all sorts of scare stories under the heading of “Obamacare”.

    When you can come up with a snappy one or two word appellation for a thing or phenomenon, no matter how true or untrue one’s description of it is, it becomes way easier to create the links you want to make in the public’s mind.

  • AnonymousSam

    Oh, that one. Yeah. ._. For a minute, I somehow interpreted your comment to be about husbands sexually assaulting their wives (and with how the Republicans seem determined to catapult us back a century, that would have been oh so believable). I didn’t sleep for CRAP last night.

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    “And the Ryan/Republican budget. The hell happened to the Preamble?”

    ?

  • Lori

     

    Why isn’t Obama calling his proposals the “Obama budget” and directly
    highlighting, in counterpoint, how his proposale make more sense than
    anything this Ryan dude crapped out? 

    He has. The counter to the Ryan budget is widely called the Obama budget. Obama gave a speech just the other day about why the Ryan budget sucks and his is better. He ended the speech by pointing out that no one has to take his word for it because they can look it up for themselves, which was both true and a dig at the handwave that constitutes virtually all of Ryan’s social services cuts.

  • Lori

     The Ryan budget does not by any stretch of the imagination “provide for the general welfare”.

  • http://profiles.google.com/marc.k.mielke Marc Mielke

    I think Paul Ryan is simply jealous of his fictitious relative.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-_CLDNkv4k&feature=related 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

     

    Actually each of the spells are level 0 so:

    The funny thing is, they actually aren’t. About ten Republicans (not a lot, but a lot since they usually do march lockstep) voted with the Democrats against Ryan’s budget when it came up for a vote this time. One of them, Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, called the budget out because it won’t actually balance the budget until 2040 and specifically exempts the military from the axe. Of course, most of the criticism against the Ryan budget are because they don’t cut enough, which is like criticizing the 2012 mortgage settlement because it was too punitive..

    When you can come up with a snappy one or two word appellation for a
    thing or phenomenon, no matter how true or untrue one’s description of
    it is, it becomes way easier to create the links you want to make in the
    public’s mind.

    That’s true, but as Lori pointed out, he’s already doing that. There are limitations to how much anyone can really do about the budget process though. House Republicans will never authorize a plan less right-wing than the Ryan proposal, and Senate Democrats will defeat anything that House Republicans would endorse. That’s why Obama seems to be looking forward to the next House elections, where — hopefully – he can get a House that can actually discharge its legal responsibilities.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    He HAD a majority in both houses and still managed to let the Republicans sandbag him with every procedural trick in the book with the willing complicity of the Blue Dogs.

    Forgive my lack of enthusiasm.

  • Josh

    Wait, Oklahoman author is proud of Garth Brooks but doesn’t mention Woody Guthrie, Ralph Ellison, and Jim Thompson? lolwut?

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    Lori- that’s not what the general welfare clause means. it means to provide for the general as opposed to specific welfare. policies and actions should provide for all, not certain groups or classes. We didn’t even have income tax till 1913, there was never a mandate to provide things for people a la charity.

  • Lori

    We also didn’t have a standing army and what amounts to an empire of military bases around the globe and yet Conservatives have no problem providing for that. So your argument fails to impress, and that’s without even getting into the fact that much of what Conservatives call specific “charity” in reality does benefit everyone by making the world generally less shitty.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Providing for the general welfare does indeed mean providing for everybody’s welfare. That means that if someone is not faring well, it is our responsibility to fix that. Rich people are faring well without welfare, and therefore don’t need it; poor people are not and therefore do. Anyway, providing an unemployed person with a job provides Sam Walton and Bill Gates with a customer, and therefore everybody wins.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

    That’s true, but he managed to pass a budget with the last Congress without any fuss. Then he got this new Congress and had to wage this protracted battle for several months before they finally approved the funding the next budget (that is, only after the US’s credit score was downgraded, and only after the President consented to painful, stupid budget cuts that no one expects to actually be enacted).

    I don’t really consider that a reasonable or healthy way to run a government and I hope you can forgive my lack of enthusiasm for two more years of watching John Boehner try to wrangle a pack of incompetent ideologues and misogynistic tyrants into some approximation of a legislature.

  • Beroli

     

    Lori- that’s not what the general welfare clause means.

    I’d ask to see your source, except I already know from past experience that it would be some other idiot like you, whose word you accepted because he (possibly she, but probably he) said things you wanted to hear.

  • Kubricks_Rube

    “it means to provide for the general as opposed to specific welfare. policies and actions should provide for all, not certain groups or classes.”

    Setting aside that the debate over the intended meaning of the general welfare clause is not some recent plot by Stalin and FDR but goes back as far as to when it was written and was not even agreed upon by those who drafted and ratified it, isn’t it at all possible that over the last few centuries we’ve realized that the general welfare can not reasonably, effectively or efficiently be addressed- and therefore the Constitution cannot be plausibly upheld- without providing for specific welfare as well?

  • Tricksterson

    I thought the Rupublicans were favored to win the Senate and increase their hold on the House (Not too sure about the last part but am about the first)

  • TheFaithfulStone

    Gimme a pigs foot, and a bottle of beer.

    Bessie Smith, FTW.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

    They are, which that doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t campaign against them hard.

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    Lori- we shouldn’t  have all the military bases and no standing army would be fine with me.  That’s neither here nor there though. The Constitution gave congress 18 different powers in article 1 section 8. If “general welfare” were as vague as you claim there would have been no need for the other 17.

    providing for the general welfare meant they were NOT allowed to provide for special interests. this of course they have totally ignored anyway 

    “The Constitution limits government, it doesn’t authorize unlimited goverment”- Roger Pilon

  • JayemGriffin

    In other news: The UB InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, which forced its gay treasurer to resign (you may remember the incident from a similar linkstorm post on here) has finally been derecognized. Basically, they can’t get school funding for their activities anymore, unless they choose to remove the discriminatory articles from their constitution. (source: 
    http://www.ubspectrum.com/news/intervarsity-christian-fellowship-derecognized-1.2849203#.T4xgsrOWlbw 

  • Lunch Meat

    providing for the general welfare meant they were NOT allowed to provide for special interests.

    That’s silly. Does providing for the “common” defense mean they’re not allowed to defend specific people? (There goes the Secret Service…) Does ensuring “domestic” tranquility mean they’re not allowed to help with tranquility in other nations through foreign aid?

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    lunch meat- the wording of the Constitution is vague in places but providing for the general welfare as you have described it would make the whole document essentially void. anyone could define the general welfare as whatever they wanted.  The point of the constitution is to tell the government what it can’t do, what it’s limits are.  

  • Lori

    That’s neither here nor there though.

    Ah yes, the standard line—I’m not for military spending, but stopping it doesn’t really matter. The only thing that matters is that the government is absolutely forbidden from helping Those People.

    As always, lovely talking to ya Chris.  

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    Lori- a democrat trying to make a Ron Paul supporter look like they are unwilling or unafraid to cut military spending and doesn’t hold it very high if not the highest priority is really rich. You probably think the Hillary tumbl pics are hilarious.

  • Kubricks_Rube

    “anyone could define the general welfare as whatever they wanted.”

    Just as (some of) the founders intended. Alexander Hamilton, 1791:

    The National Legislature has express authority “To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare” with no other qualifications than that “all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that “no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.”

    These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and “general Welfare.” The terms “general Welfare” were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou’d have been restricted within narrower limits than the “General Welfare” and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

    It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

    The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this–That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

    No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.

  • Lori

    A) What does supporting Ron Paul have to do with it? There was never even the slightest possiblity that he would get the GOP nomination, let alone be elected president and he has done sweet fuck all with the job he does have. Supporting him doesn’t rise above the level of hot air.

    B) Irrelevent comments about (your idiotic notions of) my sense of humor do nothing for your argument but make you look like an ass.

  • hidden_urchin

    Yeppers.  The Founding Fathers left parts of the Constitution less well defined so that it could be changed to accomodate changing conditions.  That’s why it has survived as long as it has.

    I’m still waiting for my updated Bill of Rights.  That things like the right to not be hungry or the right to not die of a treatable disease are not yet a part of the Constitution is a damned disgrace.*  They may not have been achievable in the 18th century but that’s no excuse in the 21st.

    *Ideally this would all go without saying.  However, the Constitution-worship in American pretty well means that it isn’t going to happen until it gets into the Constitution.

  • JoyfulA

     The Progressive Caucus has a great budget proposal that even cuts the deficit.

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    Lori- the point I am very much antiwar. whatever “conservatives” do or think is non of my concern. Plenty of democrats voted for the Iraq war, does that mean you support it?

    kubricks-  Hamilton wanted a US Empire, of course he would seek to manipulate the general welfare clause.  Madison explained the GW clause as basically window dressing for the section on enumerated powers. Hamilton was lame.

    hidden urchin- No the constitution clearly enumerates various powers and anything not contained therin is unconstitutional. It doens’t need to change it should either be amended, followed or simply destroyed.

    Social Security may be good or bad but it is not constitutional.  There’s no authorization for it.

    ” things like the right to not be hungry or the right to not die of a treatable disease”

    these are outside the government’s purview.  It’s not their job.  They are the responsiblities of the person, their family and/or their comunity.

    also I started a blog  http://lesterhalfjr.blogspot.com/  just thought I ‘d throw that out there

  • hidden_urchin

    It doens’t need to change it should either be amended, followed or simply destroyed.

    Contradiction much?  An amendment to the Constitution would indeed be a change to it and the sign that the document needed to change in order to fit a changing society.

    It’s not their job.  They are the responsiblities of the person, their family and/or their comunity.

    A government is no more than a group of people chosen to represent the community and make decisions on behalf of that community.  The government is “We the People.”  Thus, it is the government’s job to help its citizens when they are in need. 

  • Kubricks_Rube

    “also I started a blog”

    Oh my god you did. And I think you did it just to make my head explode. In a post defending self-proclaimed racist John Derbyshire (!) you drop this gem:

    “Don’t try to understand women and their weird take on life at all. They are worse than Hezbollah and similarly their worldview will never make sense to the western mind.”

    You also say, “John Derbyshire is a lucky bastard: I wish I was famous enough to be blacklisted!”

    You’re famous enough to be blacklisted by me, so congrats!

  • Lori

     

    Lori- the point I am very much antiwar. whatever “conservatives” do or think is non of my concern.  

    You’re the one who said that the budget impact of the Pentagon was neither here nor there, not me.  If your anti-war sentiments are so terribly vital and important then you probably shouldn’t brush them aside in your rush to condemn people for wanting a government that isn’t run by total assholes.

  • Lori

    “Don’t try to understand women and their weird take on life at all. They
    are worse than Hezbollah and similarly their worldview will never make
    sense to the western mind.”

    Oh for the love of FSM. I want to say that I can’t believe you trotted out that tired bit of bullshit, but I can.

    If that was an attempt at humor you might want to avoid future attempts to criticize things that other people find funny.  Compared to that “texts from Hillary” is freaking genius.

    If you’re serious, well that’s just one more area in which you are ignorant and vile.

    “John Derbyshire is a lucky bastard: I wish I was famous enough to be blacklisted!”

    I’d settle for you being famous enough to be blacklisted by Fred.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    One of the most inconvenient facts for people trying to argue from a base of “what the Founder meant by X in the Constitution” is that lots of the Founders left behind lots of papers where they wrote “this is what I meant by X in the Constitution.”

    If we accept “original intent” as a valid grounds for interpreting the Constitution, why do so many “originalists” want to ignore things like the Federalist Papers that specifically lay out that original intent?

    Oh right, because “originalists” just want to pretend that their interpretation is Holy Writ and pesky facts might get in the way.

    Funny how many of those “originalists” are also “Biblical literalists.” It’s almost as if it had something to do with a certain mindset rather than with any kind of studied approach to interpreting texts.

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    hidden urchin-  the point is if you want to add something to the constitution do it, don’t interpret some other part to suit your own desire.

    “The government is “We the People.” 

    no, we the people are the people. We could be a country without any government. the government couldn’t be the government with no country. They are a bunch of people with the limited powers they were given in the consitution . They aren’t “us”  we are their bosses, ostensibly.  We pay them to facilitate things.

    kubricks- I had a thing about reagan leaving lebanon after the barracks bombing saying he didn’t understand middle eastern politics. I took that out but left in the thing comparing women to hezbollah . I was saying I don’t mess with womens issues because it’s not worth it and I don’t understand alot of it. Have you ever read a Jackie Collins novel. It’s like straight porn. I have no problem with that it’s just kind of crazy.

    lori- no I was not serious. Women aren’t worse than hezbollah. It’s just grousing.

  • Tricksterson

    Visited.  I look forward to mocking you.

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    trickerston- thanks. My next article is going to be about Shaima Alawadi I think.

  • hidden_urchin

    the point is if you want to add something to the constitution do it, don’t interpret some other part to suit your own desire.

    So how is this not changing the Constitution again?  I’m still waiting for you to resolve the contradiction you set forth in that last post in which you said

    It doens’t need to change it should either be amended, followed or simply destroyed.

    Also, my entire point was that the Constitution was designed to be adaptable and should be changed to reflect the change in society.  Apparently, that doesn’t differ from your point so why did you respond to it?

    We could be a country without any government. the government couldn’t be the government with no country.

    The accuracy of this statement depends on your definitions.Unless you are talking about geographic borders or a homogenous population, it is very unlikely the USA could be considered a country without a central government.  More likely it would fracture into a lot of smaller communities.Also, if you consider the government as separate from the people, it is possible for a government to exist apart from its country such as the Free French Government in exile during WWII.  This actually poses a bit of a problem since such exiles tend to be out of touch with the people and frequently overestimate their own popularity.  (It gets outsiders involved in internal affairs for which they are wholly unprepared.)If, however, you consider the government to be the people then it does indeed grow from a community and require that community to exist.  “Country” is a bit too specific.So, exactly what do you mean by “country” and “government.”  Is a country a geographic area or a community held together by a common idelogy/language/culture/etc.?  Is a government a part of the people or separate from them?

    They are a bunch of people with the limited powers they were given in the consitution . They aren’t “us”  we are their bosses, ostensibly.  We pay them to facilitate things.

    The people who make up the government come from “us” unless you intend to argue that they are foreign nationals.  As I said, they were chosen to represent the community as a whole.  That doesn’t separate them from the community and it doesn’t absolve the community of responsibility for the decisions they make.The problem is that those so chosen have taken to listening to a minority instead of the people as a whole.  However, as the community put them into power and has not yet removed them from it, they are still the voice of the people. 


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X