| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
jason.cherkis@huffingtonpost.com
Voter Suppression Rally In Tampa Disrupted By Activists With Threatening Fliers
Posted: 08/28/2012 9:17 pm Updated: 08/28/2012 9:31 pm
TAMPA, Fla. -- Tuesday evening's protest against so-called voter fraud laws was briefly disrupted by a pair of apparently conservative activists. The two tried to engage the small crowd in the Ybor City neighborhood's Centennial Park before being quickly shouted down and then mobbed by the press.
The activist pair said they just wanted to engage in a dialogue, but they attempted to pass out fliers that were hardly constructive. The fliers, from a group called Protect the Polls, were so absurdly threatening that at least one journalist suggested they might be fake. The handouts, which repeat what is on the group's website, stated:
Voter fraud is more prevalent today than in anytime in United States History. Florida Gun Owners are banding together to make sure that, in this election, no persons without government ID will able vote [sic]. We need your help! Sign the petition to make Protect the Polls law.
Under the Protect the Polls law, anyone suspected of committing voter fraud can be fired upon -- providing the weapon is registered and operated by its licensed owner. If Protect the Polls is implemented, the gun owner would face no criminal charges as he/she would be protecting the right we all have to a fair presidential election.
The fliers themselves could be seen as an act of attempted voter suppression.
Violence over voting rights is nothing new; it was certainly prevalent during the civil rights era. Recently, Florida has been called "the new Selma" for its draconian attempts to restrict how people register to vote, when they vote and how they vote. The state legislation has had an effect: Registration of Democratic voters has been down in Florida
.
On its website, Protect the Polls compares its proposed bill favorably to Florida's notorious stand-your-ground law.
One of the two activists, who told reporters his name was John Nelson, wore a Romney/Ryan button on his light-blue shirt. He had a stack of fliers in his hand. If it was all a hoax, neither Nelson nor his companion broke character. After a few moments with reporters, they quickly exited the park.
It's unclear who is funding the group, which has two followers on Twitter.
After the incident, Rev. Charles McKenzie, Florida coordinator for the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, took the stage to give the most rousing speech of the evening. He railed against what he considered Florida's attempts at voter suppression, aimed specifically at minorities.
"The civil war is over," McKenzie bellowed into the microphone. "It's our time. It is America's time! ... We are America."
Also on Hufinton Post
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:54 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
|
Tue Aug 28, 2012 9:24 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Florida Voter Registration Groups Win Major Victory As Judge Prepares To Block Draconian Law
The Huffington Post | By Nick Wing Posted: 08/29/2012 1:52 pm Updated: 08/29/2012 1:52 pm
A federal judge on Wednesday said he was prepared to grant a permanent injunction that would block controversial restrictions on voter registration groups passed by Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) last year
[/b]“This order is a decisive victory for Florida voters,” said Lee Rowland of the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program, one of the attorneys who argued the case for the plaintiffs, in a statement. “The Florida legislature has tried repeatedly to stifle access to voter registration opportunities, and once again a federal court has stopped them in their tracks. We are thrilled that voter registration groups can now get back to what they do best -- expanding our democracy.”[/b]
The Florida Times-Union reported earlier this week that voter registration groups had largely shut down their operations in the wake of the new strictures, a trend that has done serious damage to registration trends of Democratic voters.
According to the Times-Union's review of state records, in the lead-up to elections in 2004 and 2008, the 13-month period between July 1 and August 1 of election year showed an average increase in registered Democrats of 209,425 voters. Over the same time between 2011 to 2012, registered Democrats increased by only 11,365 voters. It's easily enough to swing the election.
“It has without a doubt hurt registration numbers,” said Deirdre Macnab, president of the nonpartisan League of Women Voters of Florida. “It really gummed up the works and made it harder for Floridians to get registered.”
The Department of Justice has also mounted a separate challenge against Florida's new voter laws, claiming that they violate the Voting Rights Act with their new limitations on early voting and third-party voter registration groups.
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Wed Aug 29, 2012 4:04 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Colorado Voter Purge: Many Suspected Ineligible Voters Actually U.S. Citizens
By IVAN MORENO 08/29/12 10:50 PM ET Huffington Post
DENVER -- Nearly a third of people whose citizenship and right to vote were questioned by Colorado's secretary of state are actually U.S. citizens, election officials said Wednesday, prompting Democrats to question the motives behind the effort to clean up voting rolls as a tightly contested presidential election approaches.
Earlier this month, Republican Secretary of State Scott Gessler sent letters to nearly 4,000 people questioning their citizenship as part of a plan to have them voluntarily withdraw or confirm their eligibility to vote.
State officials were able to run 1,400 of those names through a federal immigration database and found that more than 1,200 were U.S. citizens. Verification of the remaining names is still pending, but so far, the search hasn't turned up any non-citizens registered to vote.
Martha Tierney, an attorney for the Colorado Democratic Party, told election officials during a meeting Wednesday that they were wasting their time on a small group of voters instead of focusing on ensuring a fair and accurate fall election.
"This is a witch hunt and you should be embarrassed that you're going down this road," she said.
Gessler's office plans to release updated figures Thursday detailing how many of the 4,000 people responded directly to affirm their citizenship or withdraw their voter registration. He said no further action will be taken involving people who did not respond to the letters.
Democrats have criticized the effort to correct the voting rolls and said it could disenfranchise legal voters or make it difficult to exercise their right to vote. More than three-quarters of the letters went to Democrats and independent voters.
Gessler denies any political motivation and insists his goal is to maintain accurate voter rolls. His office said it did not look at party registration when sending the letters.
Gessler spokesman Rich Coolidge said that ensuring only eligible voters cast ballots is an important component of running a successful election.
"As the state's chief election official, he is obligated to make sure that only eligible voters are casting ballots," Coolidge said before the hearing. "We identified a vulnerability in the system, we identified people who exploited, or accidentally exploited, that vulnerability, and we're going to shut down that loophole."
Still, critics have questioned Gessler's political motivations in a year where both major parties see Colorado as key to winning the presidential election. Control of the state Legislature and competitive congressional races are also at stake.
Across the country Republicans have aggressively pursued initiatives to verify voters' citizenship, particularly in swing states, much to the ire of Democrats who worry that key parts of their base – Latinos and seniors – are likely to be disenfranchised.
Election chiefs in Iowa, Michigan, New Mexico and Ohio – all expected to be competitive in November – joined Colorado and other states asking the federal government for access to the database to verify citizenship. Colorado got access to the database last week.
Samantha Meiring, 37, a Colorado voter whose status was questioned, waved a letter as she told election officials Wednesday that she was speaking "as an immigrant and U.S. citizen who got a lovely little letter in the mail."
"I find it absolutely ridiculous that a U.S. citizen is being asked to jump through additional hoops to exercise a right to vote," said the registered Democrat, a South African immigrant who became a U.S. citizen in 2010. "I think you're chasing people that don't need to be chased."
A total of 1,566 letters went to Democrats and 1,794 went to unaffiliated voters. Another 486 letters were sent to Republicans.
Using information from the department of motor vehicles, Gessler identified people who once presented documents showing they were not citizens, such as a green card, when applying for a driver's license. It's unclear whether those people registered to vote while getting a driver's license or when approached by someone as part of registration drive.
Gessler's office provided The Associated Press with the party affiliation of people who received the letters but denied a request to see their names, citing an ongoing investigation.
Democrats and voting advocacy groups said Gessler has shown no proof of widespread fraud and overreached by sending the letters.
"They basically sent out the functional equivalent of an email blast," said Mark Grueskin, an attorney who represents Democrats on election issues.
The American Civil Liberties Union in Colorado said at least 25 eligible voters who got the letters have contacted the organization, and the number is growing.
Democrats do not want Gessler to hold hearings for the fewer than 200 remaining people whose citizenship status hasn't been verified on the federal immigration database. They say further hearings are unnecessary because county clerks already have the power to handle challenges to voter registrations.
If Gessler's plan to hold hearings is approved by his office, people could start receiving a new round of letters as soon as next week notifying them that their citizenship is in doubt.
Deputy Secretary of State Suzanne Staiert said the goal is to keep accurate voter rolls, and that officials are working in the best interest of immigrants who may be unaware that they're breaking the law by being registered to vote or by voting.
"I understand that you think this is a very small percentage," she told opponents of the plan, "but for these people, this is their life." |
|
|
|
Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:24 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Texas voter ID law is blocked
By Sari Horwitz and Del Quentin Wilber, Updated: Thursday, August 30, 12:59 PMThe Washington Post
A federal court on Thursday blocked a controversial new voter ID law in Texas, ruling that the state failed to show that the law would not harm the voting rights of minorities.
The three-judge panel in the historic case said that evidence also showed that costs of obtaining a voter ID would fall most heavily on poor African Americans and Hispanics in Texas.
Evidence submitted by Texas to prove that its law did not discriminate was “unpersuasive, invalid, or both,” wrote David. S. Tatel, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in the panel’s 56-page opinion.
The ruling will likely have political implications in the coming elections. Republicans and Democrats have been arguing over whether increasingly tough voter ID laws discriminate against African Americans and Hispanics.
Texas Attorney General Gregg Abbott said that the state will appeal Thursday’s ruling to the Supreme Court, which is the next stop in a voting rights case.
“Today’s decision is wrong on the law and improperly prevents Texas from implementing the same type of ballot integrity safeguards that are employed by Georgia and Indiana — and were upheld by the Supreme Court,” Abbott said in a statement.
Texas is the largest state covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires federal approval or “preclearance” of any voting changes in states that have a history of discrimination. Because of Texas’s discrimination history, the voter ID law signed last year by its Republican governor, Rick Perry, had to be cleared by the Justice Department. The department blocked the law in March, saying it would endanger minority voting rights. Texas sued the department, leading to a week-long trial in July.
Tatel was joined in the Texas decision by U.S. district judges Rosemary Collyer, appointed in 2002 by President George W. Bush and Robert L. Wilkins, who was nominated in 2010 by President Obama.
Earlier this week, a separate three-judge panel in Washington threw out Texas’s redistricting plans saying the maps drawn by the Republican-led legislature undermined the political clout of minorities who are responsible for the state’s population growth.
The Obama administration opposed both laws because it says they threaten to disenfranchise millions of Latino and African American voters.
The challenges are part of an escalating national legal battle over voter ID laws that has become more intense because it is an election year. Eight states passed voter ID laws last year, and critics say the new statutes could hurt turnout among minority voters and others, many of whom helped elect Obama in 2008. But supporters of the measures — seven of which were signed by Republican governors and one by an independent — say that requiring voters to show specific photo IDs would prevent voter fraud.
Republican lawmakers have argued that the voter ID law is needed to clean up voter rolls, which they say are filled with the names of illegal immigrants, ineligible felons and the deceased. Texas, they argue, is asking for no more identification than people need to board an airplane, get a library card or enter many government buildings.
In a courtroom just down the hallway from where judges heard arguments over the Texas voter ID statute, lawyers for the Justice Department and South Carolina are squaring off this week over a similar measure passed by the state’s legislature last year
.
The Justice Department rejected the South Carolina voter ID law in December, the first time that a voting law was refused clearance by Justice in nearly 20 years. South Carolina sued the government to overturn the decision.
The law would require South Carolina voters to show one of five forms of photo identification to be permitted to cast a ballot: a state driver’s license, an ID card issued by the state’s department of motor vehicles, a U.S. military ID, a passport, or a new form of free photo ID issued by county election officials. Lawyers for South Carolina say the law was needed to prevent election fraud and to “enhance public confidence in the integrity of the law.”
“No one disputes that a state must have a system for identifying eligible registered voters who present themselves to vote,” Chris Bartolomucci, a lawyer for South Carolina, told the three-judge panel on Monday. “That is just common sense.”
The Justice Department and attorneys representing civil rights groups, including the NAACP and ACLU, countered in court that the law did discriminate against minority voters and cannot pass muster under the Voting Rights Act.
“A disproportionate number of those individuals are members of racial minority groups,” said Bradley Heard, a Justice Department lawyer, in describing how the law would affect South Carolina voters.
Last month, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. gave a speech in Texas and referred to voter ID laws as “poll taxes,” referring to fees in some states in the South that were used to disenfranchise blacks during the Jim Crow era. Under the Texas law, the minimum cost to obtain a voter ID for a Texas resident without a copy of his birth certificate would be $22, according to the Justice Department. |
|
|
|
Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:53 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Maddow Blog
Federal court restores early voting in Ohio
By Steve Benen
-
Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:56 PM EDT.
We've been keeping a close eye on Republican efforts to suppress early voting in Ohio, and Democratic efforts to create a level playing field. Today, a federal court delivered a major victory to those who support expansive voting rights and opportunities.
U.S. District Court Senior Judge Peter C. Economus ordered Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted not to enforce a state law passed last year that closed that window to in-person early voting to anyone but members of the military and their families.
"This Court notes that restoring in-person early voting to all Ohio voters through the Monday before Election Day does not deprive (military) voters from early voting,'' wrote Judge Economus, a Clinton appointee. "Instead, and more importantly, it places all Ohio voters on equal standing.
"The only hindrance to (military) early voting is the Secretary of State's failure to set uniform hours at elections boards during the last three days before Election Day,'' he wrote. "On balance, the right of Ohio voters to vote in person during the last three days prior to Election Day -- a right previously conferred to all voters by the State -- outweighs the State's interest in setting the 6 p.m. Friday deadline.''
[Update: the ruling is available online here.]
To briefly recap for those who haven't been following this story, Ohio allowed voters an early-voting window of three days before Election Day, which in turn boosted turnout and alleviated long lines. This year, Republican officials wanted to close the window -- active-duty servicemen and women could vote early, but no one else, not even veterans, could enjoy the same right.
One prominent Republican official recently conceded he opposes weekend voting because it would "accommodate the urban -- read African American -- voter-turnout machine
."
President Obama's campaign team filed suit, asking for a level playing field, giving every eligible Ohio voter -- active-duty troops, veterans, and civilians -- equal access. Today, a federal court agreed. If the ruling stands, every eligible Ohio voter will be able to cast a ballot during the three-day, early-voting window leading up to Election Day on Nov. 6.
In an amusing twist, the ruling even cites Bush v. Gore. Economus wrote the "Court stresses that where the state has authorized in-person early voting through the Monday before Election Day for all voters, 'the state may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another.' "Here, that is precisely what the state has done."
Ohio will surely appeal, but for now, this is a major development that may even influence the outcome of the presidential race -- the more Ohio voters have access to their own elections process, the harder it is for Republicans to win.
. |
|
|
|
Fri Aug 31, 2012 4:26 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
|
|
Fri Aug 31, 2012 4:31 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Federal judge orders Ohio's Husted back to court
By Steve Benen
Thu Sep 6, 2012 12:34 PM EDT.
Associated Press
Last week, a federal judge ordered Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted (R) to leave the state's early-voting window open for all of the state's eligible voters, overturning a Republican law approved last year. Husted's next step should have been, obviously, establishing expanded hours for early voting and setting a statewide schedule.
But Husted had other ideas. On Tuesday, the Republican official, who helps oversee Ohio's elections process, said he intended to ignore the court ruling until after an appeal.
I'm not an attorney, but it's my understanding that federal courts get a little peeved when someone tries to ignore their decisions.
A federal judge ordered Secretary of State Jon Husted on Wednesday to personally appear next week at a hearing about his reluctance to restore early voting the weekend before the Nov. 6 election.
Judge Peter Economus, whose ruling Husted has resisted, scheduled the hearing on Sept. 13 in the U.S. District Court in Columbus.
Economus set the hearing after President Barack Obama's re-election team filed a motion Wednesday requesting the court to enforce its order to restore in-person early voting during the final three days before the presidential election.
Rick Hasen posted a copy of yesterday's order.
From Husted's perspective, his appeal is likely to work -- the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has a reputation for a conservative-friendly circuit -- so he doesn't see any point to making it easier for his own constituents to cast ballots during the upcoming election. On the contrary, as a Republican official, Husted is eager to make it more difficult for Ohio voters to participate, not less.
Unfortunately for the Ohio Secretary of State, however, judges don't much care about defendants' expectations. Economus issued a ruling and he wants Husted to follow it. Decisions from federal courts are not suggestions and they're not optional.
. |
|
|
|
Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:59 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Dennis Lieberman, Tom Ritchie, Ohio Election Officials, Sue Sec. Of State Jon Husted For Firing
Reuters | Posted: 09/10/2012 7:53 pm Updated: 09/11/2012 10:24 am
By Kim Palmer
CLEVELAND, Sept 10 (Reuters) - Two Ohio election officials fired for trying to extend voting in the final weekend before the November election in their county that includes Democratic-leaning Dayton, filed a federal lawsuit Monday seeking restoration to their former positions.
Dennis Lieberman and Tom Ritchie, both Democrats, contend Republican Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted unjustly fired them after they defied his statewide restriction and proposed that Montgomery County have extended voting hours.
They asked for a temporary restraining order to restore them to their county board of elections positions and to defer the naming of replacements until a hearing can be scheduled.
"Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Ritchie were fired for breaking election law," Husted spokesman Matt McClellan said. "They are free to say what they want, but not free to do what they want."
Ritchie and Lieberman contend in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Dayton that their firing was unconstitutional because the directive was "silent on the subject of weekend hours."
Ritchie said he and Lieberman followed the directive to set minimum early voting hours and were extending voting on the weekend during the same hours open during the 2012 Ohio primary and the 2008 presidential election.
"Dennis and I did nothing wrong," Ritchie said in a statement. "We knew that 11,000 Montgomery County residents voted during early weekend hours in 2008. The county has the money to pay for the extended hours. We were only trying to give people a fair chance to vote."
Ohio is a key battleground state in the Nov. 6 presidential election and enacted bipartisan changes in 2005 after long lines had plagued polling stations during the election a year earlier. Early voting begins Oct. 2.
Republicans pushed through legislation last year to roll back some of the reforms, cutting off early in-person balloting for the last three days before Election Day, with the exception of members of the armed forces.
Most of the changes were repealed after early voting backers threatened to put the issue to a referendum. Military members, who tend to vote Republican, continued to have the right to vote in-person the last three days before the election.
A federal judge in late August granted a preliminary injunction ordering that in-person voting be allowed during the last three days before the election. Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine has appealed the ruling to a federal appeals court. (Editing by David Bailey and Lisa Shumaker)
Also on HuffPost: |
|
|
|
Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:19 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Court puts Pennsylvania voter-ID law on hold
By Steve Benen
THE MADDOW BLOG -
Tue Oct 2, 2012 10:27 AM EDT.
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R) had hoped to stop thousands of his eligible constituents from voting this year without an ID.
When Republican policymakers at the state level decided to create harsh, new voting restrictions this year, the approval process was pretty easy: GOP lawmakers worked with GOP governors and passed measures like voter-ID laws.
What Republicans didn't count on were the problems they'd face in the courts.
Two weeks ago, in a bit of a surprise, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court sent the state's voter-ID law back to a lower court for review. This morning, that lower court put the law on hold.
A judge postponed Pennsylvania's controversial voter identification requirement on Tuesday, ordering the state not to enforce it in this year's presidential election but allowing it to go into full effect next year.
The decision by Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson on the law requiring each voter to show a valid photo ID could be appealed to the state Supreme Court.
However, Simpson based his decision on guidelines given to him days ago by the high court justices, and it could easily be the final word on the law just five weeks before the Nov. 6 election. One lawyer for the plaintiffs said it appeared to be a "win."
If the ruling stands, it's a significant setback in the Republican drive to stack the election deck.
Logistical concerns appeared to play a key role in the outcome. With just five weeks until Election Day, Pennsylvania wasn't in a position to process the paperwork for hundreds of thousands of eligible voters, hadn't fully trained elections officials, and was left with a chaotic system full of confused statewide clerks, all unsure how to implement one of the harshest voter-suppression laws in the nation (created to address a problem that doesn't exist).
Judge Simpson specifically said this morning that revised procedures, hurriedly put together by state officials "will reveal unforeseen problems which impede implementation." He added, "I am not still convinced in my predictive judgment that there will be no voter disenfranchisement arising out of the Commonwealth's implementation of a voter identification requirement for the purposes of the upcoming election."
Some of the relevant details, including the role of provisional ballots, are still coming together, but at first blush, it appears that the ruling is an important win for voting-rights advocates and a major setback for the GOP.
The entire ruling is online here (pdf).
Update: Rick Hasen explains the significance of the judge enjoining only part of the law: "The state may still ask for id. But it must accept a ballot even if the voter fails to have id. It will not be necessary to cast a provisional ballot. This may cause confusion at the polls, as the state will still have poll workers ask for id, even though a voter can vote without it." |
|
|
|
Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:51 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Dan Froomkin
froomkin@huffingtonpost.com
Billionaire William Louis-Dreyfus Calls On Fellow Rich To Battle Voter Suppression
Posted: 10/02/2012 1:43 pm EDT Updated: 10/02/2012 2:00 pm EDT
Elections 2012, Video, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Voting Rights, Voting Rights, William Louis-Dreyfus, Democracy, Louis-Dreyfus, Voter ID, Politics News
The billionaire father of actress Julia Louis Dreyfus is calling for wealthy people to donate to the fight against voter suppression.
A billionaire businessman is calling on his fellow wealthy people to fight voter suppression, which he says is a mortal threat to American democracy.
William Louis-Dreyfus announced in a full-page ad in The New York Times on Tuesday that he has pledged $1 million to protect voting rights, and he asked others to join him.
If Louis-Dreyfus' name sounds familiar, it could be because he ran the eponymous global commodity trading company founded by his great-great-grandfather -- or it could be because his daughter, Julia, played Elaine in the television show "Seinfeld," and now plays the title character in "Veep."
"There is no right more fundamental to our republic than the right to vote," Louis-Dreyfus wrote in his message. "And yet there is a countrywide effort to prevent hundreds of thousands of people from voting. Many supporters of that suppression effort have admitted or implied that its purpose is to win an election by preventing voters thought to be of a different political persuasion from voting at all."
Indeed, Republicans around the country have passed legislation and encouraged moves to require voters to provide photo ID, restrict voter registration, eliminate early voting, purge voter rolls and send pollwatchers into minority precincts. These measures are all ostensibly intended to prevent voter fraud, which is objectively a nonissue.
Making voting harder rather than easier does, on the other hand, dissuade if not actively block some low income, elderly, minority or disabled people from voting. Such efforts have historically most affected groups more likely to vote for Democratic Party candidates.
As Louis-Dreyfus noted, some Republicans have been blunt about their motives. Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, for instance, famously bragged in June about having passed "Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania."
Louis-Dreyfus' specific concern: "If the election were to be decided because of that effort, then a poison will have been injected in the blood of our democracy. And that represents as great a danger to our democracy as has ever existed from within our borders."
Why should the rich care? Louis-Dreyfus explained: "Among the many things that contributed to my wealth is the political society in which it was earned. The voter suppression effort is a direct assault on that society and on the democracy which it created. We who have the blessing of our millions need to know that protecting our assets demands preserving the democracy that made them possible."
Louis-Dreyfus called for donations to nonpartisan organizations working to protect voting rights, and particularly to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. |
|
|
|
Wed Oct 03, 2012 2:37 pm |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
