Sunday, April 15, 2012

The Director of Bully Was Bullied Too

The Director of Bully Was Bullied Too

Lee Hirsch is giving dozens of interviews to promote the documentary
but has talked little about what his own childhood was like, perhaps
because he says much of it's still blocked out.
By Lucas Grindley

Bully lets us peek into the school lives of several kids who are being
tormented by classmates — but only because director Lee Hirsch was
there to witness it all happening.

What propelled him into making the eyebrow-raising documentary must
have been, in part, his own childhood, when walking home from school
was like pushing through a "gauntlet" and other kids beat on him for
"sport." For Hirsch, the camera was his way of fighting back for the
kids in the film and for those all over the country who are
experiencing the same thing.

Hirsch spoke with The Advocate about growing up bullied, whether the
problem really does affect LGBT youth more, and how he got former
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee to tell his Fox News
viewers that they should go see the movie.

The Advocate: As people are watching the movie, I don't know if they
realize that it's you behind the camera just feet away from all of
this abuse that's happening. I know you expected to see these kinds of
things that happened, so what did you do with Alex, for example, who
is attacked often, to prepare for the moment when he would get beat
up?
Lee Hirsch: I don't know that there was anything that could I do to
prepare. I didn't know what was going on to the extent that it was
going on. A really good case in point is the first scene in the film
where a student is saying profanities and threatening him on the bus.
Because we were such a low-budget film, I didn't have any way to
monitor the audio. So I remember kind of saying to Alex after that
ride, "seemed like you had a good bus ride," and saying to my
producer, "he might have even made a friend." That's how wrong I got
that — until we were in the edit room months later and we actually
heard what was said that day.

Obviously, the scene that was in the trailer and that people are
really talking about, immediately after that happened we made the
decision to stop the film and speak to the family and speak to the
school. Alex and I talked a lot about bullying and the stuff that he
was going through. He gradually opened up more and more over the
course of the school year. What I know in my heart is that Alex knew
that I had his back. And caring, being invested in his story meant a
lot to him.

It's important that you had his back because you were bullied as a kid.
And he knew that. He and I had talked a lot about that. It was a big
part of the relationships and the conversations with families. I
thought of Alex and his family and other families in this film not as
subjects but as partners. So those relationships were very important,
and it really mattered to me that they knew. There were families that
we shot extensively for the film that aren't in the movie, and in each
of those relationships it was really important that those students
knew that I was there to fight for them. That's what this film was
about.

What was it like for you to go home after a whole day of Alex getting
picked on? As someone who was bullied, was it bringing up bad memories
for you?
The whole process has brought up bad memories for me. This was a hard
film to make. There were many, many hard days for a lot of reasons.
That was a really hard day in particular. There was a lot of emotion
throughout, but that was hard. I think probably that the connection
that you are making with my own bullying is interesting. It's the
experience of having a group go at you and knowing what that looks
like and feels like. It wasn't surprising because I'd been through
that. There are lots of memories that I actually don't have. People
tell me about things that happened that I can't even remember. I think
I still have a lot of it blocked.

You've said just getting home from school was almost impossible for
you. I know that a constant theme in the movie was people riding the
bus home, which was harrowing. What was it in your case? Were you
taking the bus, walking, what happened?
I walked. Yeah, I just remember it felt like running the gauntlet. It
was just sort of sport to hit me, or to go at me. One of the things I
do remember is that there was a period where I felt like my arms were
so bruised that they were just yellow. They went beyond black and
blue. They just had this permanent yellow. So it was difficult.

You've gotten such an amazing response with celebrities coming out
saying they had been bullied. Meryl Streep told you she had been
bullied. How did that come about?
She had offered to host a screening in New York, and it felt as though
she had never shared this before, and I don't know because haven't
been able to do the research. But she told this story about being up
in a tree and that kids were hitting her with sticks, hitting her
knees until they bled. It was almost as if as she told it, she was
also, in that way, laughing it off. What she describes was harrowing,
but she was very powerful. I had such a nice chat with her afterwards.
The other thing that happened that night is she learned from another
presenter who went to school with her daughter that her daughter is a
defender. She had been the one who would always stand up for kids who
were being picked on and bullied. That was awesome because she never
knew that.

I think it's amazing for people to hear that Meryl Streep was bullied,
or that you, the director of this big documentary, had been bullied.
I think lots of people in our world were probably bullied. I think
that maybe you know it's one of those kinds of experiences that helps
one be empathetic. I think empathy is required to act. I just wonder
if our numbers are higher, which is also I think good news for kids
who are being bullied out there to see others who have gone through it
that have gone on to make a difference.

You tell the story of this transgender boy named Kelby who was
identifying then as lesbian and was ostracized and attacked. For a lot
of kids like Kelby in the movie, they are attacked for being gay or
just for being perceived as being gay. For Alex, the kids said he was
creepy or whatever. What was it for you?
There's a part of me that almost wants to outright reject that
question. That's one of the things that gets said to kids a lot when
you are bullied: What are you doing to bring this on, what are you
doing to make this happen? And I remember that so, so well. I couldn't
find an answer. I couldn't come to that understanding. Now as I look
back, I think it had a lot to do with my parents who were three
generations older than any of the other kids' parents. My dad is going
to be 93, and so I didn't have, I wasn't dressed like the other kids
and my hair was different. I don't know that I had the same kind of
socialization skills at that point. I was sort of smart, sort of off,
didn't have the skills to deflect it and that was something that
people honed in on.

Since the movie, Alex and Kelby have both left their schools. And I
guess you changed schools too when you were a kid. Did anything
change? Is that a solution for kids?
Things did change for me, by the end of my sophomore year in high
school. It wasn't an immediate solution for the problem. Problems in
some ways followed. For some kids, changing schools is an option and
can be helpful. I'm learning so much now about the numbers of kids who
are being home schooled because of bullying. Parents are frustrated
and they think it's the right or the best and only choice in some
cases. The thing is that not all families can switch their kids'
schools. It's an economics issue. It's a geographical issue. If you
are in an urban environment it's much easier, if you're in a smaller
town it's much harder. Your livelihood can be pegged to that
community. It's really tough stuff. Parents are engaging now in a very
powerful conversation through this film about how they support and
fight for their kids when they are being bullied, and they should
understand the full arsenal. That includes escalating really
powerfully within the school system, documenting, making things
formal, going up the chain of command, all the way to the
superintendent. Use local media if you have to. There are lots of
things in the arsenal, and parents need to get very creative, and
their kids need to know that they are fighting for them.

There is one disturbing scene where Alex tells the administrator. And
the administrator says, If you had only been telling me about this
before I could have done something. Alex says, Well I have told you.
Was that your experience too? Did you try to tell administrators and
nothing was done?
There were many parallels between Alex's world and what I remember.
There is this thing that happens in the film where you really see this
mistrust. It brings home the conversation with educators that when you
say to someone that you are going to take care of something, they
remember if you did or you didn't. And that affects whether they are
going to feel like they can go to you again in a situation where they
are experiencing bullying or harassment. But, yeah, I absolutely
remember administrators not helping, or being unwilling or unable to.
I think it's very common.

Bullying obviously goes way back. It's not a new thing. So why is it
getting attention now, how do you explain it?
It feels like we've talked about it as a nation a lot because of the
tragedies. We are also hearing more about when there is a suicide.
When we were kids, this never made it into the media or the suicide
itself was never revealed as a suicide. So the national conversation
raised the alarm. I'd like to think that we are moving toward a
tipping point. The conversation is now, for me, if when people mention
bullying and they in the same sentence mention I'm going to stand up
to it, I'm going to step up, and if we play any role in advancing that
piece of the national discourse, then I'll be really proud and
pleased.

The issue of suicides has been especially important to Advocate
readers because it has so affected LGBT youth. I know you've said
bullying affects everybody. But is this whole suicide problem more
acute in the LGBT community, and if so does it deserve a different
sort of callout?
I 'd rather not speak of it from a perspective of suicide. I think
that there are kids who are at risk. I think special needs kids are at
really high risk for bullying. I think GLBT kids are at high risk for
bullying, and the organizations like PFLAG and GLSEN and HRC have done
such an incredible job raising awareness and really owning the impact
that bullying has on their kids and their community. I have spent a
lot of my time advocating for that within the special needs community.
What I really felt like was that everyone needed to take a cue from
the awareness-raising, and being really ahead of the curve, and being
so active and profoundly impactful, that the gay community has been in
the last few years — and probably longer. I do think it's important
that we speak about this broadly because you don't want a situation
where you feel like you can only get support if you're gay because
other kids get bulled too. So I think it's important to frame the
conversation as being about empathy and kindness and stepping up and
getting all sorts of people engaged and involved and caring about the
issue. Doing so uplifts absolutely everybody.

And that's how you get people like Mike Huckabee supporting you?
And then you have people like Mike Huckabee supporting the film, and
you have conservatives going out to see the film that probably, on
analysis, will make them rethink how they've felt about homosexuality
after they spend the time and get to know this incredible family —
Kelby's parents, Kelby. It's really amazing, and that's important, and
that's going to help to change the conversation and make an impact for
LGBT kids, for sure, I'm convinced of it.

More:
http://www.advocate.com/Arts_and_Entertainment/Film/The_Director_of_Bully_Was_Bullied_Too/

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Right-Wing Group Has Its Own Version of Titanic

Right-Wing Group Has Its Own Version of Titanic
What were Rose and Jack running from exactly? Was it an iceberg, or
was it the "radical homosexual agenda" that was really after them?
By Lucas Grindley

Rose and Jack run from ... the homosexual agenda? The release of
Titanic 3-D appears to have given one antigay group an idea — gay
people are like an iceberg trying to drown Americans.

In a "film" by a group called Truth in Action Ministries and posted
online by Right Wing Watch, a computer-generated iceberg threatens the
Titanic. But the people in the video don't see an iceberg. They see
the "radical homosexual agenda."

It's actually a "moral iceberg we need to steer clear of."

But it's too late. "The moral iceberg is ripping a hole in the
structure of America," a host warns, "and we're taking on water."

"We've already hit the iceberg" a voiceover says dramatically and "the
ship is going down." Suddenly "we're taking on water" and "the only
question is whether we're going to be able to survive."

Spoiler alert: We assume this would mean that in their version of the
hit 1997 movie, Rose would survive but Jack is drowned by the
homosexual agenda.

Video Here:

http://www.advocate.com/Arts_and_Entertainment/Film/Right-Wing_Group_Has_Its_Own_Version_of_Titanic/

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Fwd: [NEWS] Voter ID Laws: Racist or Reasonable?



--------
 

Voter ID Laws: Racist or Reasonable?
 
There's been much said lately about election integrity and voter identification laws. Both sides of the American political spectrum have raised concerns over polls and potential abuses in the American voting process. In fact, due to the serious voter registration irregularities identified by groups like True the Vote in Texas, along with the numerous voter fraud convictions across the nation involving workers from politically motivated groups like the failed organization ACORN, many states are pursuing photo identification as a means of addressing such assaults on election integrity. Texas, South Carolina, and Florida have all taken steps to mandate photo identification...
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
.

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Why Liberals (and everyone else) Should Support Ron Paul


"If you are a conservative who believes in the principles this country was founded upon, you should support Ron Paul, especially since the mainstream of the GOP abandoned those principles long ago; beating the drums of war has proven more exciting! If you are a liberal, you must acknowledge that Barack Obama has proven to be a complete sell-out to the powers-that-be on Wall Street, & to the military-security complex that Bush II raved into high gear from 2001-08. Neither Mitt Romney nor Barack Obama, finally, will mount a challenge to the debt-based money system, the money creation spigot, & the entitlement mindset that are proving to be the main factors behind the economic & cultural meltdown spreading through Western civilization." --
Steven Yates

Why Liberals (and everyone else) Should Support Ron Paul
As candidates in 2012, neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney offer voters a reasonable option when it comes to respecting and protecting the rights of Americans. The only option is Ron Paul.

Written by Dennis Behreandt on Thursday, 12 April 2012. Posted in Publisher's Corner, Opinion

At this late stage in the 2012 presidential campaign, why should anyone continue to support Ron Paul?

The question is not meant to disparage Paul, but only to recognize the reality of the GOP race. On the face of things, with Rick Santorum suspending his campaign and Newt Gingrich an afterthought, it seems a sure thing that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee. Supporting Ron Paul, from this perspective, seems futile, and even a waste of time.

But that would be an incorrect interpretation of the facts. Instead, now, for liberals (and for everyone else) is the time to do everything possible to support Ron Paul. The reason? Only by a vigorous show of support for the Texas Congressman can Americans hope to make an issue of the ever more invasive national security state that threatens to turn the United States into a nation of captives rather than a republic populated by free citizens. This goes especially for those Americans who think of themselves as liberals concerned with civil rights.

Liberals face a crisis with the 2012 presidential election. The president of "hope and change," supported so broadly four years ago, has largely been a disappointment. The Obama administration promised to be the most open and transparent administration in history. It even maintains a page on the White House website with this statement from President Obama: "My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government.  We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government."

This is widely considered to be a joke. The Obama administration has, if anything, been one of the most secretive administrations in history. The ACLU even filed a lawsuit against the administration over its secrecy. In February, Salon's Glenn Greenwald reported that the organization filed the suit "against various agencies of the Obama administration -- the Justice and Defense Departments and the CIA -- over their refusal to disclose any information about the assassination of American citizens."

Is a secretive government what liberals who supported Obama had in mind? How about a government that flagrantly violates the most basic of human rights, despite the fact that they are protected by the Bill of Rights?

Here are some of the very ominous ways in which the Obama administration has sought to undermine the constitutional protections Americans enjoy:
  • The Obama administration believes that American citizens outside the country are no longer protected by the Bill of Rights at all. UCLA law professor Kal Raustiala has pointed out that the Supreme Court ruled in 1957 "that American citizens are in fact protected against U.S. government misbehavior by the Bill of Rights even outside the country." By its treatment of American journalists and others returning to the U.S. from abroad, the Obama administration has demonstrated its contempt of the Bill of Rights. Consider the case of Oscar-nominated filmmaker Laura Poitras. As reported (again by Glenn Greenwald), Poitras is routinely detained and searched by Department of Homeland Security personnel whenever she returns home. But it's not just Poitras. Greenwald writes: "With no oversight or legal framework whatsoever, the Department of Homeland Security routinely singles out individuals who are suspected of no crimes, detains them and questions them at the airport, often for hours, when they return to the U.S. after an international trip, and then copies and even seizes their electronic devices (laptops, cameras, cellphones) and other papers (notebooks, journals, credit card receipts), forever storing their contents in government files. No search warrant is needed for any of this. No oversight exists. And there are no apparent constraints on what the U.S. Government can do with regard to whom it decides to target or why." Searches of this type are expressly forbidden by the Fourth Amendment. But under the Obama administration, the Bill of Rights does not apply.
  • More shockingly, the Obama administration believes the President has the authority to order the execution, sans trial, of any American overseas. The administration put its belief into action on September 30, 2011 when it killed American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, a disreputable character allegedly affiliated with al-Qaeda. Remarking on the killing, former Reagan administration official turned columnist Paul Craig Roberts wrote: "Many expected President Obama to re-establish the accountability of government to law. Instead, he went further than Bush/Cheney and asserted the unconstitutional power not only to hold American citizens indefinitely in prison without bringing charges, but also to take their lives without convicting them in a court of law. Obama asserts that the US Constitution notwithstanding, he has the authority to assassinate US citizens, who he deems to be a 'threat,' without due process of law." Subsequently, in a speech at Northwestern University Law School, Attorney General Eric Holder explained Obama's power to summarily order the execution of Americans: "The president may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war ­ even if that individual happens to be a U.S. citizen." To this, legal scholar Jonathan Turley remarked: "Obama has replaced the constitutional protections afforded to citizens with a 'trust me' pledge that Holder repeated yesterday at Northwestern. The good news is that Holder promised not to hunt citizens for sport." As if this isn't bad enough, senior administration officials have had a hard time deciding if the President can order the execution of citizens who are within the borders of the country. As recounted in a recent column by Turley, FBI Director Robert Mueller said he was unsure if the administration could kill Americans within the U.S. "On Wednesday Mueller was asked in a congressional hearing whether the current policy would allow the killing of citizens in the United States," Turley wrote. "Mueller said that he simply did not know whether he could order such an assassination. It was the perfect moment to capture the dangerous ambiguity introduced into our system by this claim of inherent authority. I can understand Mueller deferring to the Attorney General on the meaning of his remarks, but the question was whether Mueller understands that the same power exists within the United States. One would hope that the FBI Director would have a handle on a few details guiding his responsibilities, including whether he can kill citizens without a charge or court order." One wonders what Thomas Jefferson, who mentioned in the Declaration of Independence that the right to life is unalienable, would think of this.

These are the most alarming and egregious of the Obama administration's attacks on the basic, constitutionally protected rights of Americans. They are hardly alone. Obama has not opposed the Bush administration's Patriot Act. He signed the reprehensible NDAA that cracks open the door to military detention of American citizens, and he has signed an executive order that pretty much allows the President to seize control of the entire private sector should he wish.

When it comes to basic constitutional rights, the Obama administration is at least as bad as the Bush administration, and possibly worse. When it comes to the 2012 election, therefore, liberals for whom civil rights should be a key issue, can not, in good conscience, support the President for reelection on the basis of this terrible, authoritarian record.

They can't support the Republican frontrunner either. In 2007, the Associate Press reported: "Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney said more intense methods of CIA interrogation are acceptable in dealing with terrorism and he praised the broad powers granted law enforcement under the USA Patriot Act." These days, Romney's campaign website declares his allegiance to the Constitution as the Founding Fathers wrote it. "Mitt Romney's view of the Constitution is straightforward: its words have meaning. The founding generation adopted a written constitution for a reason. They intended to limit the powers of government according to enduring principles."

The question for liberals where Romney is concerned is, which version do we have this time -- the Patriot Act Romney of yore or the supposed "constitutionalist" of 2012?

Really, in all honesty, there is only one candidate that actually has a consistent and clear record of opposing the dangerous and unconstitutional attacks on human rights and liberties perpetrated by the Bush and Obama administrations over the last decade.

Ron Paul may face diminished chances to unseat the Republican frontrunner, but citizens can send a clear message that enough is enough with the burgeoning national security state by participating a popularity surge in favor of Ron Paul.

Doing so is crucial if we are to arrest and reverse the American security state's embrace of tyranny and rejection of the Constitution. And that's why liberals (and everyone else) should get behind Ron Paul.


http://www.americandailyherald.com/pundits/publisher-s-corner/item/why-liberals-and-everyone-else-should-support-ron-paul

Spain Would Be Dead Without ECB Loans" Says Spanish Secretary of State for Economy; Update on Black Market Transactions in Spain; Bartering in Greece



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carol K
Date: Sunday, April 15, 2012
Subject: [Hope4America] "Spain Would Be Dead Without ECB Loans" Says Spanish Secretary of State for Economy; Update on Black Market Transactions in Spain; Bartering in Greece
To: undisclosed-recipients


 

"Spain Would Be Dead Without ECB Loans" Says Spanish Secretary of State for Economy; Update on Black Market Transactions in Spain; Bartering in Greece

Posted: 14 Apr 2012 12:06 AM PDT

As Greece wonders whether its debt crisis will eventually spell its exit from the Euro, one town, Volos, has formed an alternative local currency as noted by the BBC in Greece Bartering System Popular in Volos.
A few months ago, an alternative currency was introduced in the Greek port city of Volos. It was a grass-roots initiative that has since grown into a network of more than 800 members, in a community struggling to afford items in euros during a deepening financial crisis.

From jewellery to food, electrical parts to clothes, everything here is on sale through a local alternative currency called TEM.

It works as an exchange system. If you have goods or services to offer, you gain credit, with one Euro equivalent to one TEM.

You can then use your "savings" to buy whatever else is being offered through the network, leading to some rather original exchanges of goods.

It's all reminiscent of an ancient bartering system returning to today's Greece.

"I can get language classes or computer lessons in return", says Stavros Ntentos from his stall where he sells children's underwear.

"It's a very good idea because we need to make people realise we can all buy and sell something; we don't only need euros."

"We can buy bread or meat in exchange for our products, or the girls can go to the hairdresser," says Peri Mantzafleri, who runs the co-operative.

"I grew up in a village - this was how it used to work in the old days, before money became involved. So this could be a chance to start again."
 
 
"Spain Would Be Dead Without ECB Loans"

Articles that appear in this blog translated from Spanish frequently appear in one of the major English news outlets a day or two later.


And so it is again.

As a followup to my post
Black Market in Spain: Cash Transactions Exceeding 2,500 Euros Now Banned The New York Times reports Spain Targets Tax Fraud To Counter a Recession.
The Spanish government approved a number of measures on Friday to crack down on tax fraud as part of its efforts to reassure investors that Madrid can replenish the public coffers by bringing to the surface some of the country's hidden wealth.

Jaime García-Legaz, the Spanish secretary of state for the economy, told the Spanish television channel laSexta on Friday that Spain "would be dead" without the loans provided by the European Central Bank.

To counter a deepening recession — the second in three years — the government of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy is hoping to bring out some of the revenue buried in an underground economy that was estimated by the previous government to represent about 20 percent of gross domestic product.

The efforts to combat fraud come on top of a squeeze of 27 billion euros, or $35 billion, in the central government's budget this year, as well as regulatory changes in labor markets and other areas.

As part of the measures approved at a cabinet meeting Friday, corporate cash transactions will be limited to 2,500 euros ($3,300), with fines as high as 25 percent of the transaction's value levied upon any transfers above the limit. Individuals and companies will also face sanctions beginning next year for failing to declare all assets held overseas.

Use of 500 Euro notes, worth about $657, is thought to have expanded considerably during Spain's construction boom as a way of paying for large — and sometimes undeclared — property transactions or building materials. Spaniards came to call the 500 Euro notes "bin Ladens": everywhere and yet never seen.

Cayo Lara Moya, leader of the United Left party in Spain, argued during a parliamentary session this week that the government should push for the complete removal from the Euro zone of 500 Euro notes, one of the largest denominations used in Western economies.
Banning "bin Ladens"Cannot Possibly Work

The idea that banning 500 Euro notes "bin Ladens" would accomplish anything is ludicrous. Moreover, as bad a the fraud is now, it is 100% guaranteed to get worse.

Unemployment is on the rise, and Spain is about to hike the VAT. With every tax hike comes more resistance to pay taxes. Spain is imploding and these measures will just make things worse. Please see
Massive Jump in Bank of Spain Borrowing from ECB: Bank of Spain Balance Sheet Shows Spain Deep in Trouble, LTRO is Essentially Useless for more details.

Get Money Out of Banks Now!

My advice to everyone in Spain: Take your money out of the banks while you still can. Capital controls are just around the corner.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
 

 

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
IF YOU DON'T STAND BEHIND OUR TROOPS, FEEL FREE TO STAND IN FRONT OF THEM! Please visit: www.operationshoebox.com
.

__,_._,___

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.