Community | December 10, 2011 | 36 comments

Reconstituting The Constitution: How To Rewrite It? : NPR

source: http://www.npr.org/2011/12/10/143354018/reconstituting-the-constitution-how-to-rewrite-it

Image
kennymotown
A very informative article for everyone to read!

December 10, 2011
Most Americans haven't read the U.S. Constitution in a long time, if ever. They may be able to tell you about the Second Amendment, or the Fifth, maybe even part of the First. But other than that? A lot of blank stares.

Christopher Phillips has been leading what he calls "Constitution Café" discussions with people across the country. He's asking Americans to imagine themselves as framers of our founding document.

The idea of traveling coast to coast to discuss philosophical topics with Americans is not new to Phillips.

Before this reconstituting-the-Constitution tour, the author and scholar conducted a similar exercise, traveling to different states and asking Socratic questions: What is knowledge? What is beauty? What is love?

He led these discussions in schools, parks, homeless shelters and even prisons. Then he wrote about them in three separate books.

Write Your Own Amendment
Always wanted to be a Constitutional framer? Add your own amendment in the comments section at the bottom of this piece. We will collect some of the most popular suggestions and let you vote on whether to "ratify" them the week of Dec. 12.


EnlargeASSOCIATED PRESS
Who exactly is included in the preamble's "We The People" anyhow?
Now, he's turned to one of his heroes — Thomas Jefferson — who believed, Phillips says, that Americans should revisit the Constitution every 20 years and rewrite it from scratch.

"His argument was that if Americans weren't vital stakeholders in that foundational document, they would become distanced from governance itself," Phillips explains. "And the politicians from the president on down would become 'like wolves.' "

For several months, Phillips has been asking people to imagine themselves in the role of Constitutional framers. Would we change some things if we could? Or would we leave them the same? He asks people to look over something in the document and rewrite it as an exercise.

One School's Experience

At Constitution High School in Philadelphia, a public magnet school, his assignment is the beginning: Students look at the preamble and write their own version.

"How many of you kept the first three words, 'We the People?'" Phillips asks the diverse class of high school juniors. "Should we make sure who we are talking about when we say 'We the People?' "

"'We the People' is just based on everybody," replies Mai Nuygen.

"When this Constitution was approved, 'We the People' only included white, landowning, tax-paying males," Phillips tells the class, then asks, "How many of you believe we might want to clarify who we are talking about?"

After pausing for a response, he notes, "a lot of you."

"I think we should put in 'the citizens of the United States,' " says 11th grader Maria Diaz.

"How many of you would like to add — off the top of your head — 'the citizens of the United States?' " asks Phillips.

"Immigrants are people too," Shane Duson replies. "If you leave it to just the citizens of the United States, then they lose all their rights."

"I think it should only apply to the people who were born here," says Brian Cornell. "I think that our say is more powerful because it is our country."

Phillips then tells the class that, until the 1920s, white, male, tax-paying, property-holding immigrants who were not U.S. citizens could vote in federal elections.

One student suggests that "We the People" should be everyone who pays taxes. But another student points out that he has a job and pays taxes, but he's too young to vote.

Then another student offers up a utopian view. "If you live in this country and you help promote the general welfare, as the preamble states, then you are a citizen," says Jonathan Vargas.

Phillips observes that Vargas has a very different notion of who is a citizen — not simply someone born on U.S. soil, or someone who comes to the U.S. and goes through the various hoops to become a citizen.

"What Jonathan is saying is that a citizen is someone who participates in public life and contributes actively to our democracy," explains Phillips.

Soon the students are discussing Robert Heinlein's libertarian science fiction novel Starship Troopers, which makes a distinction between a citizen and a civilian. A citizen has to help make the democracy work.

For the rest of the article go to the link provided!
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   US Politics,   Progressive America,   21 more
  2. tags:
  3.     
    |

36 comments // Reconstituting The Constitution: How To Rewrite It? : NPR

  • Novek
    • +1
      Novek  

    • why don't we all start taking this idea to our local 99% movements. I think this would be an excellent discussion for everyone and bring in a lot of people who think the 99% doesn't represent them.

    • 6 months ago
  • kennymotown
  • tverdell
  • Argon18
    • +5
      Argon18  
    • Image

    • http://www.cafepress.com/werise.602026733

      There's some synchronicity for you, when the article mentions "Soon the students are discussing Robert Heinlein's libertarian science fiction novel Starship Troopers, which makes a distinction between a citizen and a civilian. A citizen has to help make the democracy work."

      When I was young and I first read that book the argument about a citizen being obligated to be of public service in order to enjoy the benefits that the society brang had a big influence on me since it only seemed fair to contribute to pay for the privileges received. That was one of the reasons I joined the Air Force so I could earn the rights of a citizen.

      But Sen. Bernie Sanders is right that the citizens have to "save our democracy" from those that would abuse it . One way is to participate in spreading the message "From Below We Rise To Support The 99%" for the accountability and opporunities that the Occupy movement is trying to bring because "WE are in this together"

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/11/1044208/-Saving-Our-Democracy

      "The Constitution of this country has served us well, but when the Supreme Court says that attempts by the federal government and states to impose reasonable restrictions on campaign ads are unconstitutional, our democracy is in grave danger. That is why I have introduced a resolution in the Senate calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

      I did not do this lightly. In fact, I had never done it before. The U.S. constitution is an extraordinary document. In my view, it should not be amended often. In light of the Supreme Court's infamous 5-to-4 decision in the Citizens United case, however, I saw no alternative."

    • 6 months ago
  • PressCore
  • Argon18
    • +4
      Argon18  
    • PressCore:

      I'm glad you liked it. I figured I could do my part and use my skills at graphic design to make T-shirts available so that the people who wore them would spread the message farther to the people that saw them and that could help get more support to bring about a change in the system.

      Sanders is putting pressure on Congress with his resolution, OWS is putting pressure to show the a majority of the people support campaign finance reform and Cenk Uygar is putting pressure with his Wolf Pac so that the states will come together and ratify the amendment.

      Hopefully with pressure from many directions, something will be accomplished to solve the problem

    • 5 months ago
  • timelord999
  • kennymotown
  • Ambill94
    • +1
      Ambill94  

    • http://are.an

      Way to go Kenny...great post. One of the things I do in my history classes every semester is have the students read an discuss the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments). Before we being I ask how many have ever read them, and the answer is usually one or two. The pursuant discussions are often very interesting as at least a few in the class actually make some "discoveries" about why Jefferson and others fought so hard to have them included in the Constitution.

      From an educator's perspective, we no longer approach the practical matters of civics in an organized way. When I have discussed taking the time from my history classes to read and discuss the Bill of Rights, some of my peers have suggested that I should stick to history and leave those discussion for government classes where they belong. My response (when I bother to respond) is that these discussions really belong at the kitchen table.

      Of course we are often told by Constitutional "scholars", who are often lawyers, that the document is too complicated for the everyday person to understand...to that I say BS. It is they who have made it appear that way by convoluting its interpretation, and why we have strayed so far from its principles.

      We need to have classes in civics that begin at an early age and continue through at least high school. Classes that teach us the practical information about who we are as citizens and how we relate to the governments to which we are responsible for the rest of our lives. We should beging to learn at an early age what it means to be a citizen; what the expectations and responsibilities of citizenship are. Included in those classes should be discussions of the documents that establish and frame those governments from constitutions to charters etc.Then the Constitution will have real meaning and will be discussed at the kitchen table.

      There is a real roadblock to that scenario...we don't communicate. Teachers too often teach and do not dialog, parents preach and do not listen and this generation of aspiring citizens becomes more and more remote from the realities of the real world as they drill deeper into their electronic communication devices and "talk" is code without nuance and about topics of the purely mundane. We have caused this or at least allowed it to happen.

      Look at this thread...there is a relative handful of people who regularly contribute their thoughts and ideas here...

    • 6 months ago
  • kennymotown
    • +2
      kennymotown  
    • Ambill94:

      Very well said, I couldn't agree more about more civics classes. The right wing attack on education since Ronald Reagan was for a purpose to dumb the populace down so the destruction of the middle class by the Republicans could be easier. You must be a wonderful educator, I would have loved to be in one of your classes! :)

    • 6 months ago
  • Ambill94
  • kennymotown
  • PressCore
    • +1
      PressCore  
    • Image
    • Ambill94:

      http://Current.com

      I've been advocating classes in civics, logic, economics, business, graduated
      through the grades throughout high school for years now, so I'm glad you re
      affirmed my idea we need to revamp the essentials of what the young are
      taught. My background is in psychology, law, educational media up into
      graduate school, Hobbies of History, Cinema, coin collecting, communications
      as supplements. Few of my teachers were memorable. But my college Logic,
      Ideas & Movements History instructers were. I never cared for lectures. They
      were always a cop out for people unwilling to involve themselves by stimulating
      learning through interacting with students with lively dialog. I scored in the top 5%
      of all my classes, yet had to pay out of pocket for a tutor when the teacher didn't
      teach simply because of her bad attitudes resulting in the demotivation I saw. ( I attended a Catholic private high school in the early 1960s. It took me my best 2
      months net earnings + tips on a paper route of 125 customers after school to
      pay the $100 yearly tuition there for 4 years. My mom worked nights at the local
      telephone company switch board, then got up to work part time for the high
      school as secretary. My dad was out of work on permanent disability. I worked
      for $1 an hour (Silver) as an independent contractor for the County newspaper .
      We had to post a $25 bond to buy 3 day's newspapers, then sell them to their customers, often taking losses too. Can you immagine a 12 year old extending
      credit for 3 weeks to boozers who lost their jobs ? ) .She put the over achievers
      in the front row, ranking us by distance from the blackboard. Her gaze aimed so
      low catering to people who didn't need her, that the ones who needed better communication were ignored. Still I raised my grade from E to high B with co
      operation to pull me out of the depression resulting from being ignored.

      Sorry you have so called peers in your profession who act presumptiously,
      with such bad judgement. Indeed, civics classes should begin at the dinner
      table to make parents the leaders of their families. I've read the U.S.Con
      stitution through carefuly several times. Many don't focus on the sparse
      civil rights built into the main body, and don't realize that George Mason
      & Thomas Jefferson collaborated to ensure a Bill of Rights was appended
      as an afterthought. Jefferson refused to sign the document until it was
      agreed the first 10 Amendments would be included for the 13 original
      States to ratify them. One civil right from the main body stands out " that
      no Government agent on any level can impair the legal obligation of a
      contract. " If you told this to even the 2 of 10 who have heard the Bill of
      Rights, they'd likely be surprised if not astonished. The educational
      system gears kids to be consumers, and work Corporate jobs requiring
      a uniform skill set. It doesn't teach them to question authority. If they knew
      the routine practices of Govt. agents operating under the color (pretense)
      of authority, making them illegitmate, they'd want to question authority. If
      noone starts asking questions, they'll never get truthful answers through
      any Platonic dialog to bring the truth out.. Aggravating this situation is the
      hyperindividualism, selfishness, isolation of people in modern society who
      don't have the strong sense of community values that small town dwellers do

      I had no idea the 16th Amendment is a fraudulent hoax until I started con
      versing with another Current.com community member here, in depth. Or
      that the bogus doctrine of Corporate personhood arose out of the Organized
      Crime that made one Court case a travesty, which the States, Congress,
      even the SCOTUS used as precedant to follow blindly. The precedent began
      in the latter 1800s when the ruling on behalf of the plaintiffs was subverted.
      They brought suit on the grounds of the 14th Amendment, proving a Corporation
      had Discriminated against them, violating the equal protection & equal court
      Justice clause in their State. The defendant Corporation Bribed the court
      reporter to alter the Judge's ruling with a Forgery. Then made Murder threats
      to his family to intimidate him into silence his objections. The Forgery claimed
      Corporations are " persons " to use the 14th Amendment against the very
      classes of people it was ratified to protect. I wouldn't have discovered that if
      WhiteNoise hadn't divulged that story which is not widely known. If I'd heard
      some professor insert it in the middle of a 1/2 hour lecture where he read to
      the class like TV " news " reads to the illiterate, I'd have been sleeping, and
      never would have heard it.

    • 6 months ago
  • Ambill94
    • +1
      Ambill94  
    • PressCore:

      That was very well said...I am not familiar with the case you refer to, or if I am it isn't ringing any bells...do you have a reference or case name I could research...as a student of history I am always looking for ways to connect the dots from "then" to "now"...thanks...

    • 6 months ago
  • PressCore
    • 0
      PressCore  
    • Ambill94:

      I wish I did. I always Email blog all the posted stories here on Current,com
      on which I comment. I blogged that story too. But It was between 1-2 years
      ago that Whitenoise made his comment referencing that information. I'm
      involved with pressing matters now, so I wouldn't have free time to research
      it. You could though. If you type Whitehoise in a search box on Current's
      homepage, within the USA then it should pull up the comments he's made.
      And one of those comments should contain the info on the case # you want.
      He hasn't been posting for a long time here, so you may have to go back
      up to 2 years. But if you're persistent, you should find it. Thanks for your
      response. Good luck in your search, sir.

    • 6 months ago
  • Ambill94
  • Paratus
    • -1
      Paratus  

    • Read the document. It is not a contract. It defines the powers the states and the people gave to the central government so that it could perform the duties of a central government. These duties are limited and spelled out in Article I, Section 8. Also spells out the duties of the president, commander in chief and greeter of foreign nation dignitaries.
      I am definitely not in favor of rewriting it every 20 years. For the rule of law to prevail it must be consistent. We have abandoned the rule of law concept in favor of the rule of man as we speak of the Constitution in terms of "what does it mean" in determining what it says. As a "rule of man" we loose the consistency. This goes to the "living, breathing Constitution that changes with the times". If we use this benchmark than, if the highest law of the land can mean what we say we have a real problem. It means we have lost the concept of a republic. Who determines what it means, those in political power at the time? We will have devolved to a democracy, a tyranny where the rights of the minority are not protected. Only in a republic, not a democracy, are the rights of the minority protected. Under this concept than any statutory law means whatever I believe it means. Do we see a problem with this?
      The Constitution means what it says, not to be interpreted through the eyes of whoever is in power or sits on a bench. There is nothing wrong with the Constitution we have now. I would like to eliminate some of the amendments, 14, 16, 17 just as a start but that is an individual thing and does not warrant throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The opening post speaks of slavery at the time of the authorship but one of the enduring qualities of the Constitution is it adaptability. As an aside, the views of slavery were different then, read Dred Scott. Slavery could not have existed in this country and would have died of its own weight. As some would say that the authors of the Constitution owned or approved of slavery at the time of the writing yet the exact opposite is true today is prima facie evidence that the change methodology built into the document works. Perhaps that change does not happens as fast as some would like it to but the Constitution was not written to permit frivolous, off the cuff changes to reflect current social norms (no I am not saying slavery is frivolous so don't get your panties in a wad).
      What we need to do is hold the central government to the Constitution. We abandon the "limited" concept and we loose individual freedom in favor of a more powerful and intrusive federal government. We have forgotten the 9th and 10th Amendments. The duties and limitations of the central government were carefully spelled out, the rest of the issues, that would be healthcare, marijuana laws, abortion, business regulation at the local level, EPA, Department of Education, etc., etc. are left to the states.
      We don't need to rewrite the document, we need to follow it.

    • 6 months ago
  • Dagum
    • +2
      Dagum  
    • Paratus:

      Have you no knowledge of the history of the Constitution? Or have you no understanding of what a contract is? The Constitution is a contract.

      Start with the Preamble of the Constitution. It dominates the parties to the contract, as all contracts do. Drafting Conventions of the time, and even today emphasize the names of the parties to the contract in some way. (e.g. bold/highlight/Capitalize). Look at an actual picture of the Constitution "We the People" is in huge type. Because "We the people" are a party.

      In the founding father's time a preamble to a contract also included what today has been separated out and called a "recital" (i.e. a few introductory sentences that explain particular background facts of the transaction, why general reasons why the parties are here making this transaction.)

      The Constitution has "Article" I", Article II... etc. If you read contracts that should seem very familiar.

      Why? because most major contracts, even today have "Articles" and underneath them are separate provisions relating to the certain subject matter of the Article.


      But let's look at the history of the Constitution. The inspiration, motivation for the Constitution, and theoretical underpinning is John Locke's "Social Contract." In many instances the founding fathers literally took word for word from John Locke.

    • 6 months ago
  • crabbyoldguy
  • artemis6
    • +1
      artemis6  

    • Great post . This is the dialogue we need to be having in the public sphere . Not being constantly shocked by the insane babblings of the supposed presidential candidates .

    • 6 months ago
  • GRC54
    • +3
      GRC54  

    • The ones who should be reading the constitution along with every citizen on this country are the politicians from the lowly congress person all the way up to the President. Lets include SCOTUS especially the gang of 5 that make the assholish rulings none of us like.
      Good post Kenny. Your on your game.

    • 6 months ago
  • kennymotown
  • Dagum
    • +4
      Dagum  

    • The Constitution(which includes the amendments) does not need to be re-written. It needs to be enforced! Many parts of the Constitution are flat-out ignored.

      "Most Americans haven't read the U.S. Constitution in a long time, if ever."

      This is the cause of our problem. The Constitution is a contract between "We the people" and the governments of the "United States of America". Yes the Supreme Court has been one of the greatest destroyers of the Constitution.

      The Citizen's United decision completely warped the 1st amendment far beyond the original intentions of either of the parties to contract and as such is a completely illogical decision and should be disregarded .

      But the enforcement mechanism for the Constitution is not actually the Supreme Court. The Constitution is a one sided contract giving the people ultimate sovereignty and power. It is "WE THE PEOPLE" who were supposed to enforce the Constitution, not nine delusional people in black robes. But we have failed because most of the people don't even know the terms of the contract.

    • 6 months ago
  • kennymotown
  • cherry5000
    • +2
      cherry5000  

    • two idiot republican congressmen thought they could be sworn in by television; goes to show how much they know about the constitution. I guess they did not realize that they had to be sworn in by the speaker of the house in person. good post kenny. I finally framed my 1000 piece puzzle, and I didn't realize it glows in the dark.

    • 6 months ago
  • kennymotown
  • JohnA
  • KB723
    • +1
      KB723  

    • Excellent Post Kenny, Voted Up, it is indeed in all of our best interest to know what the Constitution says... It gives all of us a better understanding of who and who not to vote for, cos It seems many of our elected officials have no Clue what it says... They just want to line their Damned pockets at our expense!!!

    • 6 months ago
  • kennymotown
  • KB723
  • PressCore
    • +3
      PressCore  
    • Image
    • KB723:

      Did you know that what's recorded on the books as the 16th Amendment
      proposing the direct popular election of U.S.Senators is a hoax perpetrated
      on the American people since the 1910-1920 era ? I've spoken with one of
      our Current.com community members, and he's read up on this from an
      authoritative source. He named the researcher who did a lot of research
      into this subject, and the State Dept head who was involved in the hoax.
      It's true the amendment was proposed. But it's false that it was ever enacted.
      It's incredibly difficult for 3/4 of both Houses of each of the State Legislatures,
      and 3/4 of all the registered voters to vote something into existence-legaly.

      Organized Crime made sure it was recorded by news papers it was enacted
      anyway, after a fraudulent vote count was done. Bribery, Forgery-these are
      the crimes involved reflecting the modus operandi of Fraud on a collossal
      scale which we're living with today. The Senate was never intended, by
      Thomas Jefferson or George Washington who made the design plans for
      the national legislature, to originate Federal Statutes on the U.S.level of
      Government blueprinted by the Constitution. The Senate was made to keep
      a check & balance on bad laws enacted by the H.R. They knew it was a lot
      easier to pass a law than repeal it. And once a bad law was passed unchecked,
      it would serve as a precedant for worse laws to follow. They didn't want any
      edifice of unjust laws built on a platform supporting UnConstitutionality. During
      that very corrupt period in American history, the Amendment giving voter
      sufferage to women was proposed too. That did pass. Obviously that had the
      backing. Women's sufferage groups had promoted their civil rights movement
      since the 1800s. But even during the 1970s, an Equal Rights Amendment was
      proposed, which made a lot of headway. Yet that failed miserably to force all
      employers in all occupations to pay women the same for doing the same job
      as men, et al..When you realize what made the difference is the electronic
      media saturation of the events, and newspapers, magazines, to make it more
      difficult to fudge the result, then it makes sense that they hoodwinked people
      90 years ago. It made no sense anyone honest would want to fix something
      that wasn't broken. The Constitution mandated that U.S.Senators would be
      appointed by a majority vote of both Houses of their State's Legislatures as
      a delegation to Washington to keep control over them from closer to home.
      That way the people or their State could vote to recall them if they were turned.
      They knew the further they got away from home, the closer they were to being
      controled by international financial interests, since foreign affairs is what the
      U.S.level was made to deal with.
      instead of foreign interests

    • 6 months ago
  • KB723
  • PressCore
    • +1
      PressCore  
    • KB723:

      We raise awareness to it as a scandlous hoax perpetrated on the American
      public, then spread that genuine news far and wide until everyone has heard.
      People are so ignorant of how our framework of Government was originated,
      they need to know even more than that to realize the U.S.Senate was never
      intended to originate laws. , That it's the State's Legislatures' both Houses
      who are empowered to appoint U.S. Senators to represent the People through
      their States..,That if they don't they must be recalled, and others appointed
      in their place.

    • 6 months ago
  • KB723
    • +1
      KB723  
    • PressCore:

      I sure do learn a lot from you PressCore, thanks for letting me know as I am one of those folks that do not know the Framework as you mention, or perhaps I am easily confused.... =)

    • 6 months ago
  • PressCore
    • +1
      PressCore  
    • KB723:

      You're very welcome, brother. Viva Colorado ! " The West is
      the best." Jim Morrison. If you Google up the Presidency of
      the last great Republican leader whose face is carved on Mt.
      Rushmore, Theodore Roosevelt, cousin of FDR I think, you
      might see some notable stances he took to reaffirm the U.S.
      Constitution. Referendums to get We the People involved inb
      their civic duty gto govern themselves, which have realy taken
      off in California. Roosevelt was also keen on the recall of U.S.
      Senators by their State's Legislatures, who delegated them to
      Washington. This is because of the horrendous corruption he
      was vexed with by John Rockefeller, the Standard Oil Company
      magnate who " donated $100,000 in Gold to his foundation "
      between 1900 and 1909. Mr NWO Rockefeller bought up every
      one on in elected office he could. And the newspaper people.

      This corruption encompassed the Wall St Banksters like John
      Pierpoint Morgen et al to meet in secret at Jeckl Island off
      Georgia in 1910 to represent the financial interests of the
      Rockefellers of the USA and the Rothschilds of Europe who
      owned the major banking houses in London,, Paris, et al
      countries' capitals before the American Revolution. This
      Bankster cartel wanted to own the USA. They set up their
      trojan horse Federal Reserve to control our money supply
      through their debt based currency which translates to the
      national debt . They were the most likely suspects to begin
      the 16th Amendment calling for the direct popular election
      of U.S. Senators to gain their control over the Senate, whose
      Constitutional function was to prevent bad laws from being
      enacted.

      We all see how much damage the Banksters did to subvert
      the Constitutional check & balance function of the Senate.
      After 95 years of the Banksters' creeping control of the U.S.
      Senate, we get outrageous AntiConstitutional laws like S 1867
      by McCain/Levin. Did you see the latest Brass Check U Tube
      video ? According to Levin, it was Nobama who proposed to
      eliminate the safeguards for American citizens in that proposed l
      aw. Nobama sought to act in Bush's place to antiConstitutionaly
      expand the U.S. military role to police the USA, and make the
      USA a Gitmo. Nobama came from the Senate. The former Illinois
      Gov., Blagoyavich got 14 years in " club Fed " (prison) for selling
      the U.S. Senate seat to another black citizen to replace Nobama.
      Kind of makes you wonder how much it cost the Chicago mob
      to buy Nobama's Senate seat for him, doesn't it ?. I'd never re-vote
      for Mussolini obama ever again. He's as bad as McCain & Bush.
      And probably worse. Today I saw the first sign here on Kinne St
      advocating to vote Ron Paul to restore America. I hope so. I hope
      Dr. Paul is on the level, and he doesn't secretly work for the .01 %
      as some have claimed. Because at the rate of UnAmericanism
      I see happening trying to subvert the USA into a model of Nazi
      Germany, I won't want to live in the USA even 6 months a year.
      If they can't imprsion people on phony drug charges, they're
      seeking to make the USA into an open air prison of fear. It's
      THEY who are the real terrorists. No foreigners ever tried to
      destroy the American way of life. I'ts the traitors in Washington
      who are worse than any foreign belligerent.

    • 6 months ago
  • PressCore
    • 0
      PressCore  
    • Image
    • KB723:

      Current.com doesn't send you any robotic alerts to other comments following
      yours when they've been edited, KB723. I nearly always edit my posts, and
      have greatly expanded my oiriginal response to you. So, please click the link
      again, and read all I've expounded on. It'll help you understand how bad the
      antiAmerican corruption in Washington realy is, under the false flag of terrorism.

    • 6 months ago
more from Community:
from the community

top videos