RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Meet Lee Carter, the Democratic Socialist Who Just Knocked Off One of the Virginia GOP's Legislative Leaders Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=46703"><span class="small">Meagan Day, Jacobin</span></a>   
Saturday, 11 November 2017 14:41

Excerpt: "On Tuesday, democratic socialist Lee Carter unseated Jackson Miller, the Republican majority whip of Virginia's House of Delegates. Buoyed by the enthusiasm around the Bernie Sanders campaign and backed by the Washington DC chapter of Democratic Socialists of America, Carter successfully campaigned on single-payer health care, getting money out of politics, and putting the interests of working-class Virginians above those of big donors."

Lee Carter. (photo: People for Bernie Sanders)
Lee Carter. (photo: People for Bernie Sanders)


Meet Lee Carter, the Democratic Socialist Who Just Knocked Off One of the Virginia GOP's Legislative Leaders

By Meagan Day, Jacobin

11 November 17


An interview with the democratic socialist who just knocked off one of the Virginia GOP's legislative leaders.

n Tuesday, democratic socialist Lee Carter unseated Jackson Miller, the Republican majority whip of Virginia’s House of Delegates. Buoyed by the enthusiasm around the Bernie Sanders campaign and backed by the Washington DC chapter of Democratic Socialists of America, Carter successfully campaigned on single-payer health care, getting money out of politics, and putting the interests of working-class Virginians above those of big donors.

Running in Virginia’s 50th district, which includes the city of Manassas, Carter won with a nine-point spread, 54 to 46 percent. His Republican opponents distributed red-baiting mailers comparing him to Stalin, and the state’s Democratic Party abandoned him when he refused to tone down his message, especially his opposition to Dominion Energy’s plans for a natural gas pipeline.

Jacobin’s Meagan Day reached out to Carter to talk democratic socialism, single-payer health care, and how working-class politics can win outside the big cities.

MD: Most local campaigns are about local issues. But you made yours about big issues, like single-payer and also getting money out of politics, that cut across state lines and speak to all Americans. Why did you do that?

LC: It’s not just local conditions that you focus on, it’s material conditions. The reason I picked big transformational themes for my campaign is that these are the things I’m passionate about, and that will have the greatest long-term impact on people’s lives.

When it comes to getting money out of politics, for instance, so many politicians campaign on issues they never speak about again after election day because the donors don’t like it. That’s why I rejected corporate donors — I needed to show people that I’m actually going to fight for the voters because they’re the only people I’m accountable to.

MD: Why did you run on the Democratic Party ballot line, rather than as an independent? And how did the Democratic Party interact with your campaign?

LC: Running as an independent in Virginia would have been completely prohibitive. In a swing state, you can only really run without an established ballot line in smaller races, like city and town council, district attorney, and even mayoral races. But when you have an electorate of eighty-five thousand people and you’re trying to get their attention in an off-year, when they’re not normally inclined to pay attention to politics in the first place, that’s one hurdle that you just don’t need.

As for the Democrats, it made the most sense to me to build a coalition of groups focused on the things that the Democratic Party’s voter base and the Democratic Socialists of America have in common, such as fighting for an inclusive society, fighting for economic empowerment of working people, fighting to eliminate poverty, and transitioning away from fossil fuels.

The groups whose support I relied on included grassroots member-led Democratic organizations as well as labor unions and DSA. I did, however, end up in conflict with the state party itself, particularly its more right-wing elements, and ultimately ran without the support of the state’s party leadership. But I was only able to do so and win because I had the support of a large section of the Democratic Party’s actual base.

MD: What did the Sanders campaign last year mean for your campaign, your platform, and your politics this year?

LC: I announced my campaign in February of 2016, when we still were still worried that the general election might be between Clinton and Bush. We saw Bernie Sanders come out, a previously unknown independent socialist senator from Vermont, and he was supposed to be a 1 percent also-ran candidate by all rights. He went out there and got 13 million votes in the Democratic primary, and frankly if that primary schedule had been thirty days longer he probably would’ve won, because he had all the momentum on his side.

It went to show that if you deliver a message of economic empowerment for working people, and you walk the walk and don’t take any contributions from the corporate interests that really have control over government at all levels, and you combine those two things with a social vision of an inclusive society, people from all walks of life will react to that.

You will get millions and millions of people who’ve become disaffected with the political process, who’ve become jaded and have started to think No party represents me or Why should I vote when they’re all the same? — you can get those folks to have hope again and show up at the polls and demand to be heard.

MD: When did you join Democratic Socialists of America, and what did it mean for your campaign?

LC: I’ve always been a bit disgruntled as a Democrat, but it was the Sanders campaign that got me past my fear of the s-word, as it did for millions of others. So I got to reading some works of economic theory (Jacobin, books from Verso press, the economist Richard Wolff) and realized, hey, this big scary boogeyman is just democracy in the workplace. Over the winter of 2016 and 2017, it clicked.

So I joined DSA and started paying dues in April, and being with a bunch of like-minded folks who are engaged, who are organized and organizing, and who got out there and delivered a message to tens of thousands of residents in my district made all the difference. My campaign knocked over twenty thousand doors in the last four days before the election, and almost half of that was from DSA volunteers.

MD: Can you talk a bit about why you think so many people are moving to the left?

LC: The story really starts in 2008. We had the global financial crisis, where we saw neoliberal global capitalism collapse in on itself. A lot of people underestimate the damage that was done, but we were days and weeks away from the milk not getting delivered. It was that kind of an economic failure.

And we never really addressed the structural problems with our economy that made that kind of collapse possible. And so the recovery that we got was slow and it was not nearly complete. Tens of millions of American workers who had a single full-time job that paid the bills before the financial crisis are now working precariously in two and three part-time jobs trying to make ends meet. We bailed out the big banks with trillions of dollars of taxpayer money, on the promise that the banks wouldn’t foreclose on people’s homes, and then they started foreclosing on homes at a record rate.

And so ever since then you’ve seen the center of American and global politics being hollowed out. The center is not holding anymore. So there are large populist movements on both the left and the right, because people are looking for answers, and the mainstream of American politics is no longer providing them. You saw that in 2011 with the Occupy movement, as short-lived as it was, and throughout the world with the Arab Spring uprisings.

And then in 2016 you saw the rise of Bernie Sanders on the left and Donald Trump on the right, and this rejection of the center of both parties. That’s because there’s a recognition on the part of tens of millions of people, at least on the subconscious level, that the center of American politics in both parties are the ones responsible for 2008.

MD: From a political strategy standpoint, why do you advocate so vehemently for single-payer health care?

LC: There are about 750,000 Virginians who have no health insurance whatsoever, almost 10 percent of our population. The more mainstream health care policy proposals are for Medicaid expansion, but that covers 400,000 people. So then what do you do with the 350,000 who still don’t have insurance after that’s done? And what do you do about the million or two million Virginians who have health insurance and can’t afford their deductible? Do you walk away from them, or do you keep fighting?

Couple this with the fact that there’s so much uncertainty around health care policy in Washington. There are three groups in Congress: one wants to provide Medicare for All, another wants to make tweaks to the Affordable Care Act, and a third group wants to gut the whole thing and screw over 30 million people. With that much uncertainty, it becomes the responsibility of the state legislatures to step forward and put a single-payer system in place on the state level, so that regardless of what happens in the halls of Congress, the residents of each state will be fine.

And then there’s just this sheer fact: if you look at the exit polls from Tuesday night, 39 percent of Virginia voters said that health care was their number one factor in making their decision.

MD: You served in the Marines, and health care in the military functions very differently than it does for everyone else. Did your personal experiences with health care affect your decision to prioritize single-payer in your campaign?

LC: It’s kind of a tale of two injuries. In the summer of 2009, while I was on active duty, I had a crate full of radios dropped on my leg. I went to medical, they stitched me up, I showed them my ID card, and that was the extent of the process. Then in the civilian workforce, in the summer of 2015, I got shocked and blew my back out pulling away from the lighting control panel I was working in. The experience was completely different.

I ended up fighting to get a doctor that would actually try to find out what the problem was, rather than just giving me pills and a bill. If you wonder why we have an opioid crisis in this country, that’s part of it. So it took me three months to find a doctor who wanted to do the hard work to diagnose me, and they ended up treating the problem with a ten-day course of cortisol. It was a very simple fix that got me back up on my feet after not being able to walk more than fifty feet at a time. Of course I had to pay out of pocket for it.

When I was able to work again, I called my former employer. They told me point blank, we have work but we don’t have any for you. The company was not comfortable with me on their job sites. Of course I had been trying to get workers’ compensation for nine months, eventually acting as my own attorney. And it shouldn’t be any surprise to Jacobin readers that companies don’t like workers who stand up for their rights. They cut me down to zero hours in retaliation against me for filing a claim.

MD: What’s the future of democratic socialism in the electoral arena?

LC: It looks bright. DSA almost doubled the number of its members and endorsed candidates who became elected officials on Tuesday. So it goes to show that having unabashed support for working-class issues, issues facing communities of color, issues facing women and climate issues — having a solid stance that is unapologetic, and saying you will fight tooth and nail on all of these — it works.

I like to think that this provides a roadmap for other candidates. One of the things this campaign showed is that it’s perhaps harder to get this kind of message across in a place that the establishment Democrats are in control of, like New York and San Francisco with their safe blue seats. But once you get into working-class communities in swing states, it becomes much easier to defeat your opponent. We might even say it’s easier to defeat a Republican than it is to defeat a Democrat.

MD: Final question: Bernie 2020?

LC: I hope he’ll run, because he’d win.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Trump, Putin, and Veteran's Day Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=40776"><span class="small">Dan Rather, Dan Rather's Facebook Page</span></a>   
Saturday, 11 November 2017 12:26

Rather writes: "On a day when we honor the service and sacrifice of millions of men and women who swore to defend their beloved nation, its Constitution, its rule of law, and its basic decencies in the face of foreign aggression."

Dan Rather. (photo: Christopher Patey)
Dan Rather. (photo: Christopher Patey)


Trump, Putin, and Veteran's Day

By Dan Rather, Dan Rather's Facebook Page

11 November 17

 

n Veteran's Day no less. On a day when we honor the service and sacrifice of millions of men and women who swore to defend their beloved nation, its Constitution, its rule of law, and its basic decencies in the face of foreign aggression.

On this day, the President meets with an autocrat, a strongman, an avowed enemy of the freedoms we hold dear. And he takes the assurances of a known spy over the consensus of our entire national security and intelligence communities. He takes the word of a foreign adversary over the men and women who put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe. And then he impugns the reputations of the Americans calling them "political hacks?"

As many of you know, I have been traveling the country on a book tour and meeting Americans of all types, across the political spectrum. They are telling me how worried they are. They know this behavior isn't normal for a Commander in Chief. Not by a long shot. And we cannot allow it to be normalized. And all who choose to excuse it away must be called to account. We cannot let politically convenient expediencies cloud hard facts and reasoned conclusions. We were attacked. This was deliberate and the effects and scale of the attack may not be known for some time. We have a serious and active investigation into possible collusion from members of Mr. Trump's inner circle. There are real questions about what the President may have known, and when (remembering that he must be provided the presumption of innocence).

I am pretty confident how history will judge this moment in the American story. There will be a tally of those who spoke up and those who remained silent. In the meantime, how much harm will be done?


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: How to Fix the Democratic Party Print
Saturday, 11 November 2017 11:59

Sanders writes: "Donald Trump's presidency represents an unprecedented crisis for our country. His campaign, and now his White House, seek to divide us using racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia and xenophobia."

Bernie Sanders. (photo: AP)
Bernie Sanders. (photo: AP)


How to Fix the Democratic Party

By Bernie Sanders, Politico

11 November 17


It’s time we come together to enact real reform—only then can we defeat Donald Trump and retake the country.

onald Trump’s presidency represents an unprecedented crisis for our country. His campaign, and now his White House, seek to divide us using racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia and xenophobia. His economic agenda is the agenda of the billionaire class. He wants more tax breaks for the rich, while cutting education, nutrition, affordable housing and other programs desperately needed by working families. And his refusal to acknowledge the great danger of climate change is a threat to the entire planet.

There is nothing, nothing more important than defeating Donald Trump and his extreme right-wing agenda. But this will not happen without an effective opposition party.

Victories in Virginia, New Jersey, Washington, Maine and other states around the country on Tuesday are an important first step in pushing back against Trump’s radical agenda. It was especially gratifying to see thousands of working people and young people jump into the political process, volunteering, knocking on doors and winning elections to state legislatures, city councils and school boards. But the longer-term trend for the Democratic Party is worrisome.

Since 2009, it has lost more than 1,000 seats in state legislatures across the country. Republicans now control the White House and 34 (soon to be 33) out of 50 governorships, as well as the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

In 26 states, Republicans control the governor's mansion along with the entirety of the state legislature. This is not just in so-called deep red states. It is true in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Florida and New Hampshire, all of which will be critical to defeating Trump in 2020, and in drawing congressional districts following that year’s Census.

What is especially absurd about this situation is that the American people strongly oppose almost all elements of the Trump-Republican agenda. Fewer than one-third of Americans support the Trump and Republican tax cuts for the wealthy, and just 12 percent supported their plan to throw tens of millions of people off of their health care. The majority of Americans understand that climate change is real.

Donna Brazile’s recent book makes it abundantly clear how important it is to bring fundamental reforms to the Democratic Party. The party cannot remain an institution largely dominated by the wealthy and inside-the-Beltway consultants. It must open its doors and welcome into its ranks millions of working people and young people who desperately want to be involved in determining the future of our nation.

Last year, Secretary Hillary Clinton and I agreed upon the need for a Unity Reform Commission to move the party in a new and more democratic direction. In a few weeks, this group will have its final meeting in Washington, D.C., and will decide if we are going to move forward in an inclusive way or continue with the current failed approach.

This is not some abstract, insular debate. The future of Democratic Party institutions has everything to do with whether or not Democrats have the grass-roots energy to effectively take on Trump, the Republican Party and their reactionary agenda—or whether we remain in the minority.

What are some of the reforms that are desperately needed?

First, it is absurd that the Democratic Party now gives over 700 superdelegates—almost one-third the number a presidential candidate needs to win the nomination—the power to control the nominating process and ignore the will of voters.

Second, in contrast to Republicans, Democrats believe in making voting easier, not harder. We believe in universal and same-day voter registration and ending antiquated, arbitrary and discriminatory voter registration laws. These same principles must apply to our primaries. Our job must be to reach out to independents and to young people and bring them into the Democratic Party process. Independent voters are critical to general election victories. Locking them out of primaries is a pathway to failure.

In that regard, it is absurd that New Yorkers must change their party registration six months before the Democratic primary in order to participate. Other states have similar, if not as onerous provisions.

Third, in states that use caucuses, we must make it easier for working people and students to participate. While there is much to be said for bringing people together, face to face to discuss why they support the candidate of their choice, not everybody is able to participate because of work, child care or other obligations. A process must be developed that gives everyone the right to cast a vote even if they are not physically able to attend a caucus.

Finally, if we are to succeed, we must fully appreciate Brazile’s revelations and understand the need for far more transparency in the financial and policy workings of the Democratic Party. Hundreds of millions of dollars flow in and out of the Democratic National Committee with little to no accountability. That simply is not acceptable.

At a time when we have a Republican president and Republican Party whose leadership and agenda are strongly opposed by the American people, now is the time for real change. It is critical that we come together and reform the Democratic Party. When we do that, we will win local, state and national elections and transform our country.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Robert Mercer Invested Offshore Dark Money to Sink Clinton. He Must Be Delighted Print
Saturday, 11 November 2017 09:45

Abramson writes: "According to the Paradise Papers, billionaire Robert Mercer achieved his political objectives while making very nice tax savings."

Robert Mercer. (photo: Oliver Contreras/Getty Images)
Robert Mercer. (photo: Oliver Contreras/Getty Images)


Robert Mercer Invested Offshore Dark Money to Sink Clinton. He Must Be Delighted

By Jill Abramson, Guardian UK

11 November 17


According to the Paradise Papers, billionaire Robert Mercer achieved his political objectives while making very nice tax savings writes Jill Abramson

ven as he attempts to retreat further into the shadows of dark money, Robert Mercer can’t hide.

The reclusive hedge fund billionaire recently turned over his political operations to other family members, but his outsized role in electing Donald Trump keeps reverberating. A cache of leaked documents known as the Paradise Papers and further reporting by the Guardian revealed on Tuesday that Mercer used secret offshore companies in Bermuda to avoid taxes and fund his efforts to sink Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Leaked documents and newly obtained public filings showed how the Mercer family built a $60m war chest for conservative causes inside their family foundation by using an offshore investment vehicle to legally avoid US tax. Among the gifts from the foundation was $4.7m the Mercers gave to the Government Accountability Institute run by Steve Bannon.

Mercer used the Bermuda companies to avoid a little-known US tax of up to 39% on tens of millions of dollars in investment profits amassed by the foundation and a retirement fund for the staff of Mercer’s hedge fund, Renaissance Technologies.

Bannon’s group was crucially important because it helped create the only dossier on Russian collusion that actually affected the outcome of the 2016 election. This was not the infamous document compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, which had its own secret funding (more on that below).

It was the manuscript for the book, Clinton Cash, written by Peter Schweizer and paid for by the Government Accountability Institute. Schweizer is now editor-at-large at Bannon’s Breitbart News, also funded by the Mercers.

Clinton Cash included material derived from investigative reporting by legitimate journalists and some new donor records from the Clinton Foundation, adding a few original nuggets here and there. Its most damaging finding focused on a Russian uranium deal and a multimillion-dollar contributor to the Clinton Foundation.

The book laid out a corrupt quid pro quo in which Hillary Clinton’s state department approved the deal for Russia to acquire large US uranium assets after large contributions to the foundation from the donor and his associates.

There were obvious holes in the story. Clinton herself said she had nothing to do with approving the deal. The state department was one of nine federal agencies involved in the 2010 decision and usually approved such foreign transactions. When Trump seized on the story as a central part of his Crooked Hillary brief, Politifact rated it “mostly wrong”.

Still, Bannon, flush with the cash from Mercer’s tax-averse foundation, had amazing success getting the Schweizer dossier into the right hands, the mainstream media. The New York Times and Washington Post forged “exclusive” deals to see the Clinton Cash manuscript (AKA dossier) before publication and to use it for leads.

In April 2015 the Times published a splashy takeout on the uranium deal, also suggesting, albeit more carefully than Schweizer did, a quid pro quo. Bannon, according to the book Devil’s Bargain, considered this a triumph. Injecting a clearly partisan book into the bloodstream of the mainstream press was indeed a feat, one that damaged Clinton, as her trust and honesty ratings began a nosedive in polls.

The manuscript of the 2015 book was really the only “dossier” to do damage in the campaign. The Steele dossier, commissioned first by a conservative newspaper during the Republican primaries and then funded by a law firm that represented Clinton, became public only after the election and remains one of the murky clues in Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Just as Mueller’s expected indictment of Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, began to dominate the headlines, President Trump began ranting about the uranium deal all over again and calling on the FBI to investigate. This was classic Trump, the master of distraction. As the Russia noose was moving closer to his own neck, he let loose on Twitter and in White House statements. “Your real Russia story is uranium,” he repeated, once again decrying any allegation of Russian collusion with his own campaign as “a hoax”.

Fox and the rest of the rightwing press have also dusted off the uranium story, pinning their hopes on an FBI informant and a story published by a Washington DC newspaper, the Hill. The informant’s Republican lawyer claims he has more damaging information that may become public. We’ll see.

Another old scandal, Clinton’s supposedly unholy deal with the Democratic National Committee to screw Bernie Sanders out of the Democratic nomination has also come roaring back. This reprise comes via a new book by Donna Brazile, the Democratic apparatchik. But the early party help Clinton got was more or less known last summer when the Russian hack of the Democratic National Committee’s emails was first disclosed.

As the Democratic convention began, Brazile’s predecessor resigned. On 24 July, 2016, the Washington Post reported, “Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida was forced aside by the release of thousands of embarrassing emails among party officials that appeared to show coordinated efforts to help Clinton at the expense of her rivals in the Democratic primaries.”

Brazile’s book provides more details, but so what? Between President Trump on uranium and the big headlines about Brazile’s book, you’d think Hillary Clinton was still running for president.

No doubt, the Clinton-hater Robert Mercer must be delighted. His original investment in the Government Accountability Institute has more than paid off. He not only managed to finance the successful election of Trump, but also to see his original plan to kill Clinton come back to life. And, according to the Paradise Papers, all of this was accomplished at a very nice tax saving.

It’s a Trifecta. Call it the Bermuda Triangle.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Return Armistice to Veterans' Day Print
Saturday, 11 November 2017 09:41

Mysko writes: "Few people care that the 11th day of the 11th month wasn't always called Veterans Day, that it used to be Armistice Day. Few people see the irony."

Soldiers. (photo: PA)
Soldiers. (photo: PA)


ALSO SEE: How Veterans Day Went
From Celebrating World Peace to Thanking Armed Forces

ALSO SEE: America Owes a Debt to Its
Veterans, and so Far, We Haven't Paid Up

Return Armistice to Veterans' Day

By Madeleine Mysko, The Baltimore Sun

11 November 17

 

ovember. Veterans Day. I’m a veteran who can feel its approach in her bones. The smell of autumn in the air, the leaves turning — once again I’m overwhelmed by complicated feelings, so hard to explain. This year it’s been especially trying because I’m also bearing up under the weight of the PBS series on the war in Vietnam. Meanwhile the public arena is a minefield of viciousness over how we properly demonstrate our patriotism. It makes my hands shake to see it — how we can't even get through a football game without tearing each other apart.

Last week, right after the calendar turned to November, I walked to the memorials on the grounds of the Baltimore County Courthouse — the gleaming black Vietnam Veterans Memorial, and beyond it the newer, earthen-colored memorial dedicated to veterans who served in Operations Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. I go there often. I write in my notebook there and sometimes take photos — in the morning and at dusk, on gray days and snowy days, in the dappled light of a gorgeous Memorial Day.

As I turned the corner on the courthouse lawn and approached the memorials, I was upset by something new on the path: Close to my feet, standing small but erect above the fallen leaves, a line of crisp American flags. I was upset, but I took a photo anyway, getting down on one knee to achieve the best angle. There were people walking by — it was lunch hour, a pretty day. All of a sudden I wanted to accost those innocent, unsuspecting people. “Armistice Day!” I wanted to yell at them. “Flags! Couldn’t we just for once put the patriotism away?”

Few people care that the 11th day of the 11th month wasn’t always called Veterans Day, that it used to be Armistice Day. Few people see the irony.

Once upon a time — 99 years ago in fact — a devastating world war came to an end. To celebrate the peace, our nation set aside one sacred day each year, a day to join all nations in recalling the moment when at last the arms were laid down. Eleven bells would toll solemnly at the 11th hour, and nobody would march in patriotic parades displaying military might. But time went by, and then after a second devastating world war, our nation gave up on Armistice Day. The 11th day of November became Veterans Day instead. It was as though we no longer believed in that blessed moment of peace when all the arms would be laid down. We dedicated ourselves to honoring those brave men and women who still carry the arms for us, the ones we keep sending off to wars we don’t fully understand and haven’t the courage or the political will to end.

Of course I didn’t yell at anyone that day at the memorial. I got a grip and began my ritual of reading the dedication and the names of the dead. It took some time; on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Baltimore County, there are 148 names.

I used to have a quarrel with the wording on the memorial: "Vietnam Veterans Memorial: Dedicated to the Citizens of Baltimore County who served their Nation in Southeast Asia, 1957-1975." I used to think it wasn’t right to dedicate this place to all of us veterans, just because we served. It seemed to me a memorial belonged to the dead. But lately I’ve had a change of heart. Veterans like me, whose service included seeing with our own eyes the suffering and death of others — maybe we do need a place dedicated to us. There we can sit on the bench in the shade of old trees, year after year of ongoing war, and consider what we know about the costs.

Maybe we even need this special day, the 11th of November. But if it were up to me, I’d ask a favor of the nation: Please return to us the name — and the blessed spirit — of Armistice.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 Next > End >>

Page 1446 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN