The National Emergency

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: Jon Estes

The National Emergency

Postby KeithE » Fri Feb 15, 2019 2:00 pm

We have a national emergency, all right. Its name is Donald Trump.

Let’s be clear: There is no emergency. Arrests for illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border peaked in 2000, nearly two decades ago, at more than 1.5 million a year. They declined sharply under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama and, in 2017, were at their lowest point since 1971. In 2018, apprehensions ticked up slightly — but still barely climbed above 400,000.


Immigration apprehensions is actually way down since a peak in 2001.

Image

As for the number of unauthorized immigrants that are in the US, it is falling gradually (especially from Mexico)

Image

Not exactly an emergency.

True there is a very slight rise in unauthorized immigrants from other countries (probably mostly from the Northern Triangle of Central America- Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras). But Trump’s declaration of a National Emergency is bogus. His plans to divert $6.6B to the $1.375B authorized in the going forward pending bill for a “wall” (or whatever) is a violation of the Congressional role of the being the national purse.

Truth is Trump has created/worsened problems (hesitate to call it a “national emergency”) at the Southern Border in terms of housing/care asylum seekers including thousands of separated children. It is a national embarrassment in my mind.
What the administration really needs to do is expand and improve facilities for processing, caring for and, when necessary, housing these asylum seekers. But Trump doesn’t care about doing the right thing, or even the necessary thing. He cares only about being able to claim he is following through on his vicious anti-immigration rhetoric, which brands Mexican would-be migrants as “rapists” and Central Americans as members of the MS-13 street gang.


Not sure how much was authorized in this new budget to improving this housing/care/chid detention or more asylum judges to fix this problem. But probably not a dime for the source of this problem - economic development/law enhancement in the Northern Triangle

Likewise not sure about additional funding for drug interdiction at the port of entry where 80% (fentanyl) to 90% (heroine) of drugs come through. A Wall wont help that much.

Remember as always:
Immigration is Good for Our Economy

The economic evidence on this issue is clear: immigration makes a strong contribution to economic growth. Moreover, immigration is more necessary than ever, because population aging and lower birthrates across advanced economies are producing a retirement boom without a commensurate cohort of native prime-age workers to support it.


and

Native Americans have a higher crime rate that legals or illegal immigrants.

Image

*****************************

We do have legitimate national emergencies:

Gun violence

Weather extremes (aka Climate Change, cause by Global Warming)

In just the US:

Image

To mention just two serious and growing problems.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9069
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: The National Emergency

Postby Haruo » Fri Feb 15, 2019 8:05 pm

Did you mean"Native Americans" or did you mean native-born Americans.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12589
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: The National Emergency

Postby KeithE » Sat Feb 16, 2019 11:08 am

Haruo wrote:Did you mean"Native Americans" or did you mean native-born Americans.

I meant native-born Americans (meaning people born in the USA) as the bar graph meant.

Fact checking Trump’s National Emergency speech on Feb 15.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/15/fact-checking-trumps-announcement-national-emergency/?utm_term=.d4fc4b6b338f

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/15/politics/fact-check-trump-national-emergency-immigration-speech/index.html

https://www.wral.com/ap-fact-check-trump-s-skewed-picture-of-border-perils/18196640/

https://www.keyt.com/news/politics/factchecking-trumps-speech-declaring-a-national-emergency/1021162371

https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/01/09/fact-checking-5-of-trumps-claims-in-border-speech/

This so-called crisis is “trumped up” (groan).

I’d say Donald Trump is our National Emergency. (truly groaning).
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9069
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: The National Emergency

Postby Sandy » Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:51 pm

Bottom line: Trump lost this battle in a major way.

The Democrats were already well out in front of this as far as polling data and favorability was concerned. People who keep up with the facts and know what is happening, including even larger majorities in the border cities and states along the border, know, and have seen what works. The Democrats just beefed up the border patrol's budget by $1.6 billion, more than they were asking for and an action that effectively silences the claims they want an "open border" or don't care about border security. They do, more than Republicans because for Democrats, clearly, it is about realistic solutions to stop illegal crossings and not just political grandstanding to gather cheers from rally attendees. What the Democrats just did will give law enforcement what it needs to stop the drug traffic, or severely slow it down as it comes through the ports of entry.

Disapproval of Trump policies and actions has been edging its way up in polling data toward the 60% threshold for some time now. On the issue of declaring this a national emergency, opposition is at 65%. Opposition to building a wall is in similar territory. It is going to be difficult to defend taking money from a fund that provides for housing construction for military families, improvement of services and facilities for military personnel, research for better technology and equipment, disaster relief funding for victims of fires, hurricanes and floods and for rebuilding of infrastructure damaged by natural disasters. What will happen seems predictable. Lawsuits have already been filed, the courts will stay the spending until a ruling is issued, the facts are pretty clear that there is no national emergency, there will be congressional resolutions against it, the courts will declare the president's action unconstitutional and there will be no wall.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9268
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The National Emergency

Postby KeithE » Sat Feb 16, 2019 1:25 pm

Sandy wrote:Bottom line: Trump lost this battle in a major way.

The Democrats were already well out in front of this as far as polling data and favorability was concerned. People who keep up with the facts and know what is happening, including even larger majorities in the border cities and states along the border, know, and have seen what works. The Democrats just beefed up the border patrol's budget by $1.6 billion, more than they were asking for and an action that effectively silences the claims they want an "open border" or don't care about border security. They do, more than Republicans because for Democrats, clearly, it is about realistic solutions to stop illegal crossings and not just political grandstanding to gather cheers from rally attendees. What the Democrats just did will give law enforcement what it needs to stop the drug traffic, or severely slow it down as it comes through the ports of entry.

Disapproval of Trump policies and actions has been edging its way up in polling data toward the 60% threshold for some time now. On the issue of declaring this a national emergency, opposition is at 65%. Opposition to building a wall is in similar territory. It is going to be difficult to defend taking money from a fund that provides for housing construction for military families, improvement of services and facilities for military personnel, research for better technology and equipment, disaster relief funding for victims of fires, hurricanes and floods and for rebuilding of infrastructure damaged by natural disasters. What will happen seems predictable. Lawsuits have already been filed, the courts will stay the spending until a ruling is issued, the facts are pretty clear that there is no national emergency, there will be congressional resolutions against it, the courts will declare the president's action unconstitutional and there will be no wall.


Amen to most of that. Watch how the great negotiator dramatically failed to get a good deal for himself. He wanted $5.7B for a 234 mile wall and an end to detention camps (send all the asylum seekers home -counter to international law); he got $1.375B for 55 miles of steel slats and an increase in the cap of detection beds and $1.7B for DHS spending on port of entry drug control/dogs(?)/more asylum judges/more drones (i.e. what the experts say is needed). Pretty bad negotiations but he will declare it a big success for his uncritical minions. After this declaration of a national emergency, he headed for a vacation in Mar-a-Lago.

I’ll not as prematurely triumphal about how the SCOTUS will rule on the constitutionally on the declaration of this “national” non-emergency. It may go just as the travel ban went (with SCOTUS approving) which Hannity suggested on Feb 4 and Trump parrotted on Feb 15. I’m am much more inclined to say he further cooked his goose for 2020.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9069
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: The National Emergency

Postby William Thornton » Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:22 pm

Keith will be pleased to learn that a vote is already scheduled on the emergency of Donald Trump being president. Look for that at the latest on November 3, 2020.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12283
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: The National Emergency

Postby Rvaughn » Sat Feb 16, 2019 9:52 pm

This is just a general reply to the general topic, rather than directly to Keith's OP. The info there is too busy and too much for my nighttime brain!

I am mostly ambivalent toward the physical barriers on the U.S. border. When Trump was running on the wall concept in the primaries (or whenever he first brought it up) I laughed, thought it was crazy, and that such a thing would never happen. Then later I learned that Congress had already voted and a President had already signed and construction was already completed on roughly 700 miles of physical barriers between the United States and Mexico. So much for my laugh!

I understand that any POTUS has national emergency powers, but I don't believe building a physical barrier on the border rises to that level. Really can't conceive of how it would ever. I don't like Presidents finagling powers to get what they want just because Congress won't give the money to them. We have separation of powers for a reason.

To me some of the "wall is immoral" folks look a little hypocritical too. "The wall is immoral and we voted to build 55 more miles of immorality."
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: The National Emergency

Postby Haruo » Sat Feb 16, 2019 10:18 pm

Rvaughn wrote:This is just a general reply to the general topic, rather than directly to Keith's OP. The info there is too busy and too much for my nighttime brain!

I am mostly ambivalent toward the physical barriers on the U.S. border. When Trump was running on the wall concept in the primaries (or whenever he first brought it up) I laughed, thought it was crazy, and that such a thing would never happen. Then later I learned that Congress had already voted and a President had already signed and construction was already completed on roughly 700 miles of physical barriers between the United States and Mexico. So much for my laugh!

I understand that any POTUS has national emergency powers, but I don't believe building a physical barrier on the border rises to that level. Really can't conceive of how it would ever. I don't like Presidents finagling powers to get what they want just because Congress won't give the money to them. We have separation of powers for a reason.

To me some of the "wall is immoral" folks look a little hypocritical too. "The wall is immoral and we voted to build 55 more miles of immorality."

Amen on both sides. I'm not ambivalent—I'm adamantly against the wall, including most of the 700 miles Obama got erected. But both sides are using it to rally "the base", and going to unjustified lengths in their game of chicken over it. Those eight billion dollars could be better spent. Even in the realm of border security they could be better spent. And the threat of Honduran families entering the country far, far away from ports of entry, with the intention of stealing insulin to mail to their relatives is no justification for shortchanging those who work for federal contractors, etc.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12589
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: The National Emergency

Postby Sandy » Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:59 am

Rvaughn wrote:This is just a general reply to the general topic, rather than directly to Keith's OP. The info there is too busy and too much for my nighttime brain!

I am mostly ambivalent toward the physical barriers on the U.S. border. When Trump was running on the wall concept in the primaries (or whenever he first brought it up) I laughed, thought it was crazy, and that such a thing would never happen. Then later I learned that Congress had already voted and a President had already signed and construction was already completed on roughly 700 miles of physical barriers between the United States and Mexico. So much for my laugh!

I understand that any POTUS has national emergency powers, but I don't believe building a physical barrier on the border rises to that level. Really can't conceive of how it would ever. I don't like Presidents finagling powers to get what they want just because Congress won't give the money to them. We have separation of powers for a reason.

To me some of the "wall is immoral" folks look a little hypocritical too. "The wall is immoral and we voted to build 55 more miles of immorality."



Physical barriers have always existed along the border, mostly where the 700 miles of barricades that the previous administration constructed already existed. Budget cuts during Republican administrations, mainly Bush 2, didn't provide for a lot of maintenance so there was a lot of weak patching and bandaid repair work and some of the surveillance equipment was outdated and broken. The barricades were lengthened in areas where the law enforcement authorities recommended it, much of the old deteriorated wall, which was mostly a twelve foot solid fence was replaced by the slatted steel barricades. In some places, like between San Diego and Tijuana, a couple of places near ports of entry in Arizona and in El Paso-Juarez and the lower RGV, there are barricades on the US side of the river and a chain link fence along the riverbank to create a double barrier. Previous administration was mostly repair, though there were a few new places that barriers were build, such as in the Arizona desert, where vehicle barricades were put in places where smugglers were using ATV's to cross through the desert.

The previous administration consulted the Border Patrol and local law enforcement, asked them what they needed, and gave it to them. The big difference is that this president thinks he knows how to solve the problem and won't listen to anyone else. That's proof of insanity more than incompetence or ineptness, though he is good at those things too.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9268
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The National Emergency

Postby Rvaughn » Sun Feb 17, 2019 4:36 pm

Sandy wrote:Physical barriers have always existed along the border, mostly where the 700 miles of barricades that the previous administration constructed already existed.
Here is what I found at History.com. Does this agree with what you mean, Sandy?'
According to St. John [Rachel St. John, an associate professor of history at UC Davis and author of Line in the Sand: A History of the Western U.S.-Mexico Border], the U.S. Bureau of Animal Industry erected the first fence along the frontier in 1909 to stop the trans-border movement of cattle. Border towns erected fences during the 1910s, but less as a physical barrier to entry than to denote the boundary line and channel people into designated crossing points. The United States began the installation of border fences to restrict the movement of unlawful immigrants and drugs in 1993 when President Bill Clinton mandated the construction of a 14-mile barrier between San Diego and Tijuana. The Secure Fence Act of 2006 authorized the construction of 700 miles of border fencing and vehicle barriers, which was completed in 2011.
Last edited by Rvaughn on Sun Feb 17, 2019 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: The National Emergency

Postby Rvaughn » Sun Feb 17, 2019 4:47 pm

Haruo wrote:Amen on both sides. I'm not ambivalent—I'm adamantly against the wall, including most of the 700 miles Obama got erected.
I don't consider the wall moral or immoral, but an inanimate object that may or may not be used in a beneficial way. It might be a good use of funds in some places in some places and bad in another. I agree that a big problem is that "both sides are using it to rally 'the base', and going to unjustified lengths in their game of chicken over it."
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: The National Emergency

Postby Rvaughn » Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:38 pm

Dated but pretty interesting stuff from the Congressional Research Service:
Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International Border
Sample:
As previously mentioned, the INS constructed the primary fencing in San Diego using the broad authority granted to the AG in order to guard and control the U.S. border by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). In 1996, Congress expressly authorized the AG to construct barriers at the border for the first time in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). This legislation has subsequently been amended on several occasions.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: The National Emergency

Postby Sandy » Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:10 pm

Not sure what the History.com piece is calling a "barricade" or a "fence." I grew up about 40 miles north of the border in Arizona and there was always a barrier or fence that I can remember extending out for miles from ports of entry. At Nogales, the fence was chain link, but it ran in both directions for miles out into the desert from the port of entry, about 12 feet high. One of my Dad's work buddies had a small ranch at Lochiel, Arizona and the south boundary of their property was the border. It was a really remote area, but even there, the federal government had built a low barrier fence to keep vehicles from driving across anywhere except the port of entry. The Lochiel port has been closed for a while and I know they replaced the chain link at Nogales with slatted steel barriers but how many more miles they've added, I don't know. What's visible is the checkpoints on the highways.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9268
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The National Emergency

Postby Rvaughn » Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:36 pm

I don't know either. Maybe there is a semantic issue about who built or financed the older fences/barriers? Sounds like the earlier ones that History.com mentions were built by either the U.S. Bureau of Animal Industry or border towns. Congressional Research Service seems to agree with History.com dating the barriers to the 1990s. If there were some fences there when you grew up, that is obviously earlier than the 1990s, though not "always". ;-)
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: The National Emergency

Postby Sandy » Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:31 am

Rvaughn wrote:
Haruo wrote:Amen on both sides. I'm not ambivalent—I'm adamantly against the wall, including most of the 700 miles Obama got erected.
I don't consider the wall moral or immoral, but an inanimate object that may or may not be used in a beneficial way. It might be a good use of funds in some places in some places and bad in another. I agree that a big problem is that "both sides are using it to rally 'the base', and going to unjustified lengths in their game of chicken over it."


I don't agree that "both sides are using it to rally the base." Trump, yes, because it was one of the big applause lines during his campaign and he doesn't care about the practical aspects of preventing the drug traffic, just wants a symbolic "wall" to point to and say "look what I did!" The Democrats have been seriously interested in actually stopping the drug traffic for a while and actually asked the local law enforcement, Department of Homeland Security and the Border Patrol what they needed to do their job. The influx of illegals coming across the border is more a matter of the economic and political circumstances south of the border, particularly in Mexico. Central American instability produces some traffic but not anywhere near the numbers Mexico did because they don't have the population, the distance and travel across Mexico itself is a barrier as stout as any border wall would be. The enforcement of employment laws against hiring illegals and changes in the Mexican political and economic outlook have caused the lowest number of attempts to cross and apprehensions in decades, both of those initiatives being associated with Democratic presidencies, particularly the most recent one. Some of that tax revenue that now goes to billionaires in the form of tax cuts was put to use to assist Mexico with its battle against the drug cartels during the Obama administration. Better cooperation and resources led to an increase in arrests and fewer cartel members and drug lords being able to bribe their way out. "El Chapo" was arrested and subsequently extradited because of this cooperation. The Democrats remain committed to pursuing both cooperation with Mexico and stopping the flow of drugs and now that they had their first chance in two years to put money back into that operation, they did it, I thought $1.6 billion but Keith says a little more than that. The Democrats are focusing on the real danger that a wall wouldn't even dent. Trump and his GOP lackeys are focusing on rallying their base.

A wall of any kind, including what's there now, shouldn't be allowed to interfere with people want to come to the US for asylum or opportunity. Turning those people away is what is immoral. Trump's personal biases against Latinos shouldn't be allowed to interfere with long standing US practice. That's what is immoral.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9268
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The National Emergency

Postby Haruo » Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:12 pm

Here's an interesting Snopes report on National Emergencies. I was intrigued to learn that there were 31 currently in effect when Trump added his first. I would like to find a list of all of them that have been declared since Carter regularized the process. I am interested in finding out if any of the earlier ones were declared with the sole intent of acquiring funding that the Congress had been unwilling to appropriate, and if so for what.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12589
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: The National Emergency

Postby Rvaughn » Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:16 pm

Sandy, you are free to define what is immoral related to the wall as you wish. That doesn't change the fact that certain Democratic politicians found currency in saying that the border wall is immoral.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: The National Emergency

Postby Rvaughn » Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:17 pm

Leland, Congress Research Service Report for Congress has a list of Declared National Emergencies from 1976 to 2007 (stops there because that's when it was written). Don't know if this helps with what you want. The text of the act itself can be found HERE.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: The National Emergency

Postby Haruo » Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:05 pm

Yes, that is helpful, but it leaves out the end of Bush II and all of Obama.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12589
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: The National Emergency

Postby Sandy » Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:16 pm

Congress Research Service Report wrote: There are perhaps at least four aspects of an emergency condition. The first is
its temporal character: an emergency is sudden, unforeseen, and of unknown
duration. The second is its potential gravity: an emergency is dangerous and
threatening to life and well-being. The third, in terms of governmental role and
authority, is the matter of perception: who discerns this phenomenon? The
Constitution may be guiding on this question, but not always conclusive. Fourth,
there is the element of response: by definition, an emergency requires immediate
action, but is, as well, unanticipated and, therefore, as Corwin notes, cannot always
be “dealt with according to rule.” From these simple factors arise the dynamics of
CRS-5
15 While some might argue that the concept of emergency powers can be extended to
embrace authority exercised in response to circumstances of natural disaster, this dimension
is not within the scope of this report. Various federal response arrangements and programs
for dealing with natural disasters have been established and administered with no potential
or actual disruption of constitutional arrangements. With regard to Corwin’s
characterization of emergency conditions, these long-standing arrangements and programs
suggest that natural disasters do “admit of their being dealt with according to rule.”
16 1 Stat. 264-265.
17 This authority may presently be found at 10 U.S.C. 334.
18 See James D. Richardson, ed., A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the
Presidents, vol. 1 (New York: Bureau of National Literature, 1897), pp. 149-154.
national emergency powers.15 These dynamics can be seen in the history of the
exercise of emergency powers.


So this is how the report defines an "emergency," and apparently it doesn't include natural disasters, which are covered under other authority. Of the four criteria in this report, I see nothing that qualifies the current situation as a "national emergency.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9268
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The National Emergency

Postby Rvaughn » Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:46 pm

Haruo wrote:Yes, that is helpful, but it leaves out the end of Bush II and all of Obama.
Looks like this CBS article purports to list them all. May not be as much data as you're looking for, but it would appear they are all listed.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: The National Emergency

Postby Haruo » Wed Feb 20, 2019 7:56 pm

Rvaughn wrote:
Haruo wrote:Yes, that is helpful, but it leaves out the end of Bush II and all of Obama.
Looks like this CBS article purports to list them all. May not be as much data as you're looking for, but it would appear they are all listed.

Yeah, thanks. That's pretty much what I was looking for.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12589
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle


Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest