Showing posts with label American poverty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American poverty. Show all posts

Thursday, May 15, 2008

American, Peaceful, Grassroots Revolution


One thing is for sure, no one running now, or who has run in the 2008 election campaign, can fix what has befallen this nation....no....not without the help of the people. There must be a grassroots revolution well beyond the election; one that will take up residence in D.C., hound congress 24/7 and work in the hinterlands to help re-build this nation in a new way.


The movement is already there, perhaps in it's infancy, but it is a powerful movement, one that can shake the world, but in a good way, for a change. Obama felt it coming and took advantage of it, like riding the crest of a wave, he has been successful, but I am sure that he will tell you, he is the beneficiary of what is turning into a great movement. Obama did what a good leader does; he senses the mood of the people he wishes to lead, he catches the wave of a movement, he doesn't analyze every little piece of the latest internal or independent poll. Those polls don't show what's really happening in this country.

And one can be sure that the MSM is, as usual, clueless. To them, news is what ever issues forth from the mouths of politicians or natural or man-made disasters. They are as out of touch with the people as the vast majority of the D.C. politicians.

Americans must become accustomed to acting on their own to protect their own interests and that of their states and nation. It will take awhile to clean up Washington to the degree that representatives and senators understand that they work for the people, not the corporate giants.

If there is one thing I hope we learned from the 70s and all that has happened since, it would be that grassroots organizations should have three major concerns, not just one. "One issue organizations" are too easily marginalized. The other thing we should have learned is that organizations should be pro-something and not anti-something.

The pendulum is swinging back toward the left or liberal side of American politics. If liberal is defined as John Kennedy defined it, when he was called a liberal in a derogatory fashion, then count me in. Seems to me it would be impossible for anyone to call themselves conservative today, after the last 8 years of out-right fascism, calling itself conservatism, which has been building for the last 40 years.

The fascist movement, in this country, we have witnessed over the last 40 years, is as politically and morally corrupt as Rome was in her latter years. What's worse, it can be found in other countries as well. Even little New Zealand has her share of neoconservatives who would have had NZ involved in Iraq had Helen Clark not been Prime Minister.

It must all end now! Even now it may be to late. The industrialists, now called Corporatists (which, according to Mussolini, is the same thing as Fascists) have shown themselves prepared to destroy the planet and ever species on it in the name of greed, gluttony and lust for power. God willing, they will destroy themselves first, or the people will.

American Dissatisfaction and the Peaceful Grassroots Revolution, Part 4

Imagine a nonpartisan presidential candidate who lives in a modest house, walks or bicycles around town, mows his own lawn, travels in a 1990s motorhome, and does without air conditioning and TV. Meet "Average Joe" Schriner. Joe explains that his age (52), his height (5'10"), his weight (180 pounds), his yearly income (five digits), his home state (Ohio) and his overall political outlook represent the average American.

In 1990, this Cleveland journalist and inner-city substance abuse counselor relocated to Tiffin in northwest Ohio to experience rural life. In 1992, along with his wife Liz and children Sarah and Joseph, Mr. Schriner embarked on an eight-year, 60,000-mile journey of the nation's back roads, visiting hundreds of small towns to collect research. In 2000 "Average Joe" Schriner registered with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to kick off his quiet presidential campaign. Since then--with the added company of a third child, Jonathan--he has traveled another 20,000 miles through the Northeast, the South, the Midwest, and the Southwest. In this 2008 election year, Joe is touring his home state once again.

"We're running as concerned Midwestern parents," he explains to reporters. "What Liz and I are most concerned about are mounting levels of violence, poverty, drug abuse, sex in the media, pollution." The Schriners have devoted their lives to making a real difference in the country, and their enthusiasm is contagious. Joe's campaign slogan? "The common Joe for the common good."

In 1997 the Schriner family had moved from Tiffin to Bluffton, a quiet town on I-75 about one hour north of Sidney. This led to a 2002 book called America's Best Town: Bluffton, Ohio 45817, in which "Average Joe" presents this little-known village as the most accurate representation of his platform.

This is a man who is not simply walking the fence, pandering to each group of voters in order to win votes. No, Joe believes wholeheartedly in each of his positions on each issue. Very few candidates for office have presented so many helpful and innovative ideas, all within a devout Catholic perspective. Not only do most of "Average Joe's" issue positions make good sense by themselves, but they make superb sense when combined into a single, organic, positive and sensible political philosophy.

A holistic pro-lifer, Joe firmly opposes abortion, euthanasia, stem-cell research involving embryonic abortion, and the death penalty. He would also open more crisis pregnancy care centers thruout the nation.

No big-name candidate can compete with "Average Joe" on fiscal responsibility. Joe would abolish the personal income tax and the IRS; institute a national sales tax; simplify the tax code down to a one-page form; and ensure corporations pay their fair share. He says we must "tighten our belts and pay... [the record-busting national budget deficit] off so our children don't inherit it."

If elected, Joe would replace landfills with recycling centers and outlaw toxic pesticides. He sees a deleterious trend toward mass-production mega farms, which he hopes to reverse by encouraging the retention and growth of small family farms. He would slash energy prices and clean up the environment by dramatically shifting America's energy sources to electric, wind and solar power. Joe favors US ratification of the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change.

On the surface, Joe's agenda of free health care and social security for all Americans sounds like Clinton socialism. Not so, however. "We would shift power in a tremendous fashion back to people at the local level," says Joe. With the federal bureaucracy tamed, less defense spending and America's nuclear weapons program stopped, hundreds of billions of dollars in annual revenue will be available for social programs. Banning toxic farm chemicals, tightening emissions regulations, and encouraging sustainable agricultural practices will lead to a healthier populace less in need of professional health care services. An emphasis on natural remedies as well as reining in the corrupt pharmaceutical industry will also reduce health care costs. In light of Joe's comprehensive approach and attention to the root causes of problems, free health care and social security make more sense.

Regarding the complex immigration issue, Joe would first have local communities support the aliens' immediate needs, including temporary employment, and would dismantle the nation's new southern border wall. Then he would cut red tape from the legal immigration system and clamp down on American mega-businesses operating in Mexico; the latter would help expose and clean Mexican government corruption. Then "Average Joe" would aid Mexico in developing its own distributist (free but fair) economic system, giving the Mexican people incentive to remain in their home country.

Joe is no slouch when it comes to foreign policy either. On a colorful website, www.voteforjoe.com, he has compared Middle Eastern terrorism to US inner-city violence: "Frustrated kids in US cities join gangs. Frustrated kids in the Middle East join terrorist cells." Joe will distribute foreign aid more evenly to develop the world's needy countries, initiate global nuclear disarmament to cool off the "arms race," and establish a U.S. Department of Peace. His plan for Iraq includes a formal apology to the Iraqi people for invading their land and stealing their oil, more intensive training of the Iraqi military, humanitarian and financial assistance for rebuilding the country, and a gradual withdrawal of troops effective immediately. "I would also admit there is a tremendous duality in telling other nations they can't have WMD's--when we have the biggest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world," adds "Average Joe."

Finally, Joe gives the current unthinkable atrocity in Sudan, "the first genocide of the 21st century," the attention it deserves. He supports the recent deployment of 18,000 UN-AU peacekeeping troops in Darfur; would demand that Omar al-Bashir halt the Sudanese genocide immediately; and would rally international humanitarian assistance for the millions of starving, destitute and threatened inhabitants of Sudan.

Mr. Schriner's first book about his unique presidential campaign, published in 2000, is entitled The Back Road to the White House. "We wouldn't live in the White House," declares Joe. "We've grown too soft as Americans...We're asking Americans to cut back tremendously on lifestyle." And Joe himself is leading by example. He told Alabama journalist Ken Kifer in 2002: "We share the bath water and then use the water to wash clothes. Not rhetoric, but our way of living." That year the Schriners spent Thanksgiving Day with Kifer, eating a simple four-course meal Liz had prepared the day before.

Says Joe, "I don't want to leave a world of climate change, war, abortion, rural and inner city poverty, violent streets, nuclear proliferation, astronomical national debt, little social security, dwindling access to healthcare... to our children. What sane parent would?" "Average Joe" sums up his grassroots campaign thus: "We believe that if you heal the family, you heal the country."

As a baby boomer, Joe deeply understands his generation's needs such as health care and Social Security, but he also strongly appeals to younger folks with his radically fresh, well-grounded, grassroots approach. Joe's philosophy transcends the ideological warfare of America's two-party system to reflect a perfect balance of individual responsibility and concern for the common good. The common sense, coherence and integrity of this philosophy are incomparable.

In the 2004 election, I wrote Joe Schriner's name on the ballot both to support him and show my dissatisfaction with Bush and Kerry. I intend to vote for Joe again in 2008. Currently, Joe is hoping to get his name on the ballot as the Green Party choice for president. This past September he attended the Green Party convention in Philadelphia and attracted considerable positive attention. After doing what little I can to support and promote his candidacy, I pray for Joe and his family and wish him the best of luck.

Instead of targeting big cities and preaching to emotional crowds about what his lobbyist backers claim America needs, Mr. Schriner ventures into every corner of the country to let people show and tell him what America needs. His courageous, idealistic, open-minded grassroots campaign is successful, vibrant and growing. Less than two months before writing his name on the ballot, I had the honor of meeting Joe personally at a farm festival in Yorkshire, so I can vouch for his honesty and integrity firsthand. He may be just "the little guy" with limited chances of winning the American presidency, but he gets me genuinely excited as no other candidate can. "Average Joe" Schriner has taken to heart John F. Kennedy's famous maxim, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." And he is inspiring the rest of us average folks to live by that motto as well.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Sunday, March 16, 2008

It's No Longer A Matter of What We Can Do To Stop It?

Received an email from another I.U. friend.

Her main concern was the resignation of Admiral Fallon, what it means and how impeachment is the only thing that will save us from WWIII. Good point in ordinary times, but these are not ordinary times. If impeachment is the only thing that will save us, we are all goners, because there will be no impeachment, no trial in the Senate and there will never be any accountability for the war criminals in the White House unless it is brought about by the people.

What do you think the chances of that are? My guess would be slim and none. It never occurs to average Americans, that as a Democracy (or so we are billed), we are responsible for the action of our government, unlike the citizens of, say, Iraq, who were under the heavy boot of a dictator, yet they were not spared when BushCo decided to shock and awe its way into Baghdad.

Perhaps it depends on how many people have lost their houses, lost their jobs, are without healthcare, have awakened to their own personal nightmares and realized the national one we all share, unless we are part of the the happy family on Wall Street or are corporate officers of corporate America's war profiteers, and who and what caused it our national nightmare.

One has to wonder, what it's going to take for Americans to really rise up and say, NO MORE! Replace the crooks in congress, every damn one of them, I don't give a damn whether they are Republicans, Democrats, Likuds, Nazis, Communists, whatever. replace them all and make damn sure that the person you're electing knows that we have had all we are going to take and if he or she isn't prepared to take some drastic measures, for the good of the ordinary people of America (which by it's very definition includes the Iraqi people, since Iraq is clearly our 51st state, now, and has managed to rack up more ear marks than Ted Stevens and Bob Byrd could ever imagine), don't even bother making the move to D.C, because if you go up there and have commerce with the real whores in D.C., the corporate lobbyists, instead of listening to "us, the people," we won't wait for the next election to run you out of town and we will burn K-street to the damn ground while we're at it.

We've seen what happens when the heads of corporate America are allowed to write policy:

Energy policy, for example: Kyoto is out, global warming/climate change is an evil myth made up by Al Gore because he lost the election which, by the way, he didn't. Never-ending war in the middle east to control and help deplete the oil supply, making the policy writers rich beyond anyone's wildest dreams.

How shocking! That's what happens when you allow people with a vested interest to make policy and law.

It is the people who are changing things now, not the government.

Admittedly, it sure as hell took a long time The people are buying Priuses faster than Toyota can make them and other hybrids. People who live in small towns are buying scooters and golf carts. I bought a scooter for my small town travel needs (86 miles to the gallon and environment friendly. I may need to fill it up next Christmas.) and I'm looking for a way to convert my Jeep Cherokee to diesel, since I can't afford to trade it, and I' not buying anything I can't afford to pay for in cash and I have friends who are learning how to use cooking oil for diesel. I only use it for trips into the city and necessary travel. I may have to fill it up three times a year, unless I have to travel out of town for any reason.


I want to see the oil companies get a kick in the solar plexus. Doesn't everybody? Well, Americans, make it happen. Change your fuel consumptions habits, ASAP.

It can be fun! I can attest to that. I'm 59 and am in remission from squamous cell carcinoma and am jetting around the island on a Honda metropolitan. One might ask, given that the type of cancer I have, why I give a damn about any of this. There are generations coming, long after I'm gone. Don't they deserve a chance? Being given a bad prognosis is no excuse for not caring about my beloved country and its ordinary folks. I can love my country and despise mt government. It's easy. I've been doing it for years, on and off.

Of course, I realize that that scooting around the island where I live may not seem like sound like much fun to a wealthy guy who already has three gas guzzlers, a Harley and a big ass boat, but it can for poor people and there are more of us than there are them. Furthermore, demand that your city or county leaders make laws that give right of way to small, environmentally friendly vehicles. That's the only way to get rid of the urban assault vehicles like the ones I encounter daily, so those of us who see the writing on the wall and give a damn about our environment and the robber barons of energy can feel a bit safer as we ride on our scooters, bicycles and in our golf carts, not to mention the much smaller cars that are coming out soon.

Can we prevent Bush and Cheney from nuking Iran and starting WWIII? No, we can't. Certainly not by impeachment.

Unless the people are ready to actually over-throw this illegitimate administration and a congress who are, apparently, either in on the war crimes and crimes against the constitution or who are scared stiff of BushCo.

But the people will have to be ready to suffer, because they will, if they take on this government. It's not the soldiers in Iraq who are really fighting for freedom and Democracy, it will be the people, right here on the ground, in America who will either fight the good fight or not.

It's up to us.

Are we really the scared, yellow-bellied cowards that the Bushites, other Rethugs and some Democrats think we are; so scared of some religious fanatic in a cave somewhere that we will watch our constitution shredded and not lift a finger, just to keep from wearing a burka (like anyone actually would)?

Much to the chagrin of some of my liberal friends, we are an armed-to-the-teeth people. Why should we be so scared of some nut case and his deluded followers. Are they all going to come here, invade us? With what man's Navy? Spectacular terrorist events? Not unless they are allowed in, while warning after warning after warning and red-flag intelligence is ignored by the White House.

I don't doubt that there are people out there who would really like to do Americans harm, especially after the last 5 years. But the Americans they want to hurt the most, are to be found on Wall Street, indicative of corporate America and in D.C.. I won't sacrifice my rights for them. They got themselves into this mess, or as my grandmother would say, they made their bed, let them lie in it.

Seems both our corporations (and I use the word, "our," very loosely) and our government have been misbehaving, to say the least, all over the planet for quite some time. Want to know why they hate some of us? Just do a few searches. Start with Bhopal, There are sites which are devoted to keeping up with corporate misbehavior. Give them a read. They aren't making this stuff up.

When it comes to the government, well, it's easy to list the horrors for which it has been responsible, and they have been committed by administrations of both Democrats and Republicans. The Nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was done by the Truman administration, even though Truman was being briefed that Japan was collapsing. There was no excuse for it, except to attempt to scare the pants off Joe Stalin. Mission accomplished. The Soviets just got their own atomic bomb and we were off to the races; for the moon and the militarization of space.

Thanks a lot, Harry!

But the military-industrial-complex was elated and the tax payers should have been cringing but they were too busy looking under their beds for commies and building bomb shelters that wouldn't have protected them from a nuclear cracker ball.

I know very well that there are some Americans who don't give a hoot what happens to anyone but themselves and their immediate family and believe that the USA is so strong that we can do any damn thing we please to just about anyone in that third world place, without consequences. They are living in the past. We have been weakened in just about every way imaginable since the 2000 election.

We might be able to commit the ultimate shock and awe in Tehran, as my friend is afraid will happen; the nuclear kind. But how will that really change anything except for putting more radiation in the environment for us all to enjoy, not to mention rid the world of god knows how many Iranians, 99.999999% of whom are just ordinary Joes (or Ahmeds or Mohammeds) trying to get a good education, find a good job, have a family and be able to give their kids the basics, perhaps a bit more, if they are lucky. Do I approve of everything their government does. Hell no. Not anymore than I approve of what our government has done. I don't approve of any government that has a human rights record like Iran does. Gay men shouldn't be hung, but I will tell you this, there are people right here in our own country that believe they should be and if they took over the government, gays and a number of other people would be executed. We are just one religious coup away from being Iran.

So what good would come of attacking Iran when such an act could very well set off a nuclear holocaust during which the USA would be target Making oil in short supply for China? Is that real bright, since China now owns us? Such an act may make Saudi Arabia and Israel happy, but who cares? Certainly not I.

Thanks to BushCo. we have horrendous problems over here, in our own country. As far as I'm concerned, everyone else should be on their own. It's time for the USA to pull back and begin to find solutions for our own mounting problems and leave the rest of the world alone.

I have been talking to ordinary people in quite a few countries in so-called enemy territory; you know all Arab/and or Muslim countries since around Dec., 2001. I wanted to hear directly from them about 9/11, because what my own government was saying wasn't making any sense and it still doesn't. What they said did make sense, especially after I spent some time reviewing the history of the world since WWI; not the history that's taught in American schools.

Do you know how brainwashed you are?

There are Muslims in Pakistan who know that there are many Americans who live in horrendous poverty. Other Muslims also know that many, many Americans live in abject poverty and that knowledge doesn't endear the American government to them and they don't understand it. How can a nation so wealthy care so little for so many of its citizens? Most of the Arab world was shocked by Katrina and the way the Bush administration handled it and is still handling it. They always ask about the people of NOLA when they email or chat with me. It's almost as if they have something deeply in common with them. They probably have more in common with the people of New Orleans than Bush and his ilk does.

Ordinary, every -day citizens from other nations, in what we humiliatingly refer to as the Third World, (I think I must have missed the Second World because I am clueless as to who they are.) want the same things we want, except that they also want our government to stop propping up sociopathic dictators in their own countries until it becomes inconvenient for whatever administration we elect (or don't elect but that has grabbed power anyway), when they can expect to be bombed to smithereens just to get the one guy, a guy they all despise, but don't want to die for.

Does anyone really believe that the women of Iraq grieve any less for their sons, daughters and husbands who have been killed by shock and awe and tortured by our military than the ones who were tortured and killed by Saddam and his insane sons?

Just ask yourself, how would you feel if it were you? If we were bombed, invaded and occupied by another power, would we fight back? What about a coup from within? Would we fight it? Apparently not, because that's already happened.

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Monday, February 11, 2008

Lies, Damn Lies And Poverty Statistics

Say you want a revolution, well, you know...you gotta reason!

How an archaic measurement keeps millions of poor Americans from being counted

By Christopher Moraff


Standing before the House rostrum on the night of January 31, President George W. Bush beamed as he recounted the state of the country’s economic health.

“Our economy is healthy,” the president declared during his State of the Union address. “Americans should not fear our economic future, because we intend to shape it.”

Yeah, right, for you and yours, maybe, but not for the rest of us. You might want to make sure your passport is in order, you jackass!

What shape Bush has in mind is clear. While the administrators of the president’s economic policies champion 11 consecutive quarters of GDP growth, Bush-mandated tax cuts ensure that the government will continue to make less while the rich and large corporations eagerly fill their coffers. In 2005, federal revenues were just 17.5 percent of GDP, 1 percent less than the previous 50-year average. By contrast, the Feb. 12, 2005 Economist reported that in 2004, after-tax corporate profits reached their highest level as a proportion of GDP in 75 years.

In the meantime, everyday Americans are spending more than they make. For the second straight year, personal savings have been in the red, a phenomenon that has only happened once before, at the height of the Great Depression. Research conducted by the Economic Policy Institute shows that the indebtedness of U.S. households has risen nearly 36 percent over the last four years. As a result, the gulf between the “haves” and “have nots” is reaching crisis proportions.

Compounding the crisis is an archaic method for determining America’s poverty rate, which is then used to formulate the funding of programs that alleviate poverty. When President Bush sat down with his advisors to draft his FY 2007 budget, it’s debatable whether he took the time to examine the national poverty statistics provided each year by the Census Bureaus. What’s not debatable is that the Census Bureau’s methodology is woefully inadequate.

The current method for measuring poverty in the United States was developed in 1963 by a young statistician for the Social Security Administration named Mollie Orshansky. Using data from a 1955 Department of Agriculture survey, Orshansky developed a set of thresholds that set a poverty line at three times the annual cost of feeding a family of three or more under Agriculture’s “low-cost budget.” She developed the thresholds purely for her own research and said at the time that her data’s limitations would yield a “conservative underestimate” of poverty.

At that, Orshansky’s work might well have passed into history. But on January 8, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson uttered the famous words: “This Administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” It was a war Johnson intended to win, but missing was an official yardstick for gauging the problem and its ultimate resolve.

Not just any measure would do. Rather, the administration required a threshold that was sufficiently conservative to render eradication of poverty attainable—winning the war by moving up the finish line. Orshansky’s model fit the bill. But first, the Office of Economic Opportunity substituted the Agriculture Department’s “economy food plan,” which was still another 25 percent lower than the “low cost budget” originally chosen by Orshansky. Almost immediately, the new thresholds had an effect, and by 1968, the nation’s official poverty rate had dropped by more than 10 million.

Forty years later, with the War on Poverty no closer to being won, the Census still relies on the Orshansky Thresholds to calculate each year how many Americans live in poverty. That number then determines the nature and distribution of an array of federal policies and programs aimed at addressing the issue.

As critics have pointed out for decades, limitations of the Orshansky formula are manifold. For one, food doesn’t account for one-third of a family’s budget today, making it an unrealistic cost-of-living measure. The model also fails to take into account housing, transportation or health care—which together can amount to more than triple the average cost of food. Add in regional variations, childcare costs and the growth of single-parent families, and it’s fair to say that the Census Bureau is systematically under-counting the number of poor Americans.

Census data released this past August suggests that the number of Americans in poverty grew slightly in 2004 (the most recent year for which data is available) to 12.7 percent from the 12.5 percent recorded the previous year, representing about 37 million Americans. Since 2000, the number of people living in official poverty has increased by 5.4 million. But according to experts, that number vastly underestimates the real total. Duke University sociology professor David Brady puts it this way: “Each August we Americans tell ourselves a lie. The entire episode is profoundly dishonest.”

Brady says that based on his calculations the real number is closer to 18 percent—or 48 million Americans currently unable to afford the most basic necessities. Less conservative estimates have put the numbers of poor at 25 percent, or more than 70 million Americans.

Robert T. Michael, a renowned public policy scholar at the University of Chicago, explains the shortcomings: Orshansky “set a target level of income for a family of four at $3100 in 1963 based on evidence that she put together that basically was using 1955 data. That exact same number—augmented only by cost of living—is the official measurement of poverty today. If they’d done that at the time of Abraham Lincoln, you know, set a rate something like 100 years before, then we’d have a really low level of poverty today.”

What this means in real numbers is that the average poverty threshold for a family of four in 2004 was an annual income of $19,307. It was $15,067 for a family of three; $12,334 for a family of two; and $9,645 for individuals. “It’s really egregiously in error,” Michael says.

In 1992, at the prompting of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, the National Academy of Sciences formed a panel to examine the poverty thresholds. Michael was asked to chair the panel.

After three years of work, in 1995 the panel released its report, “Measuring Poverty: A New Approach,” which proposed a number of reforms, notably a change to a measure adjusted regionally that takes into account variations in the cost of housing. But nobody in the federal government seemed ready to budge.

“We’ve gotten some movement and a lot of attention,” Michael explains, “but it hasn’t changed anything because politicians are politicians.” He blames the interests of the states—which have become financially dependent on the status quo—and an unwillingness of any administration to accept such a drastic rise of poverty on their watch.

“If they wanted to change it, it would be pretty easy to do,” agrees Brady. “The real reason it hasn’t been changed is because of politics.”

Christopher Moraff is a Philadelphia-based writer and photographer. A frequent contributor to In These Times, he has also written for the American Prospect Online, Boulder Weekly and Entrepreneur Magazine, among other publications.

More information about Christopher Moraff


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.