(Shrine 11)

By Clyde Lewis

I looked at my alarm clock and just wanted to pull the covers over my head. It was just another day to me until I was able to sip some coffee at the local market where two years before I saw my neighbors cry, and another worried about her father that worked at the World trade center. I poured my coffee spilled a little cream on the counter and stirred in chemically created sweetness that can only be found in a pink packet.

I looked at the newspaper stand in the corner. Boldly screaming at me was a headline. "Bush: Beef up Security act, President asks congress for more power to pursue and prosecute Terror suspects. Below the headline was picture of 4,094 flags one for every person who died two years ago when the United States was attacked by terrorists.

And it hit me again. The sick feeling I had the first time. I looked at my coffee cup wondering if something was wrong with my faithful liquid friend. Then I realized what was happening. My attitude was being soured by what this day means.

This day is not only the day where thousands of people died. It is a day that will be reflected upon as long as the Bush administration decides that it is relevant. It will be a day where we will praise our president for acting decisively even though we will forget that he read to elementary school students instead of giving the order to bring down the other planes that had not yet crashed.

It depresses me a bit to see and hear die-hard Bush supporters who persist in claiming that this man is a "great leader" who has brought "dignity and morality" to the White House.

I always watch Bush speeches in hopes that something will change in this man but I guess my hopes are far too great and that perhaps I will have to wait until the next election.

Even then I have to somehow hope that my cynicism calms down enough to go out and take a pill to cure my acid reflux and have faith that we as a people can eliminate the threat of fascism by making a conscious effort to restore some form of order in this country at the polls.

I sit and watch the media cheerleaders for Bush and wonder how they can continually define him as a great and Moral Leader when he and all of his mob that pull his strings have produced the largest budget deficit in our history.

I can't see how we can tolerate leaders who antagonize our traditional allies and now has the cajones to ask for their help in cleaning up the mess he created.

How can we call him a great leader when he cons his countrymen into an unjustified war with no end in sight and who, as his crowning achievement, turns Iraqi cities into rubble, killing thousands of innocent Iraqis and American soldiers.

This is the definition of a moral leader?

If anything, Bush and his disciples represent a silent alien threat that has somehow infested the brains of the American people. I have used the metaphor of the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" on several occasions when I see the activities of Government. It seems that the pods have already been strategically placed under the beds of the neocons and they hear and obey whenever their leader speaks into the microphone convinces you to "give up."

I am also troubled by his latest speech. I wondered why he chose a Sunday to deliver it and the only thing I can surmise is that he probably wanted to appear on a day that is set aside for worship. He already has made himself the Prophet in this newfound religious cult of death and he obviously wanted the faithful to fill the collection plate for another $87 Billion. He used our "Shrine 11" as a tool, much like a priest or pastor would use the crucifixion as a monumental control mechanism.

As a dying man nailed to sticks convinces the faithful of eternal life and happiness, so does the death of thousands convince us of our fears and our fate and that in order to have peace and happiness one needs to cough up the money to fortify the war machine.

I watched Bush's Sunday School speech and realized that he once again kicked the corpses of those who perished in the 911 tragedy and used it as a reason to continue to spend all kinds of money for a never ending war machine.

Then of course he spoke of his weapons of mass destruction again. I am surprised to see that he had the audacity to do so even though they continue to be weapons of wishful thinking. He continues to push the agenda and praises his own efforts and between the religious dogma and the genuflecting I find myself tuning out and in the same process feeling guilty about not caring anymore.

I am tired of the religious zeal, the over baked reverence, the blind faith and the sanctimonious attitudes of those who act as if they know better than those who just want to get on with their lives and get serious about living again.

There are some that want to forget. There are some that don't want to gather at the alien death god and sing praises to its new dark Pope. We have a President who has prayer breakfasts, invokes God on too many occasions and yet he wouldn't know true Christianity if it bit him in the butt. If no one will say this then I will because I need too.

Bush has created a new image for America and that is a fearful blundering invader. No matter how blundering, no matter how fearful, God will be on our side and will justify the continuing exploitation of those who perished on this day two years ago.

I can't see how his actions as a president and revivalist dog and pony shows don't make most Americans double over and throw up. This is the new alien religion and you offer your soul on the altar. You will be forced to bend your knees and bow your head in order to avoid being kicked in the teeth by a jackbooted angel.

I can only have hoped that the latest opinion polls show Bush's approval rating looking bleak. However we must wish it with an air of caution because I know that politics today has to have some sort of trick up their sleeve in order to get the American people to sympathize with a leader who uses such terms as Afghanistand. instead of Afghanistan and I "slam".. Instead Islam.

As we lose our sympathy for the war, and as protesters continue to sneak passed security guards and news networks bring depleted Uranium through airport security there is always the "Shrine 11" memorial to remind us of how we are vulnerable and how there is always that chance that we will all be killed if we don't listen to those who put is in this mess in the first place.

After all, there always needs toe be an enemy either real or manufactured in order for power hungry leaders to thrive and loot a country before it is found belly up. They will always be demanding a police state in order to insure order and safety in a country that has somehow run amok.

There has to be a convenient Pearl Harbor or Richestag fire in order to get Americans to roll over and play dead on command.

People are awaiting another big bang in order to get that Patriot act enacted but sometimes a hint and a nudge is all you need. The continuing commemoration does this. You will always do it when you are subjected to the electronic bombardment of "Shrine 11."

You can choose to continue to "celebrate" the attacks on New York and the Pentagon every year. You can attend tributes if it helps you cope. I would hope however that if you feel anything for those souls in New York you would do something to stop this madness.

I was reading a silly article in my morning paper. It was an article that dealt with the 911 observance.

The author of the article lamented the fact that the networks don't show the buildings coming down anymore. That they don't show people jumping out of the buildings. The author believes that this sanitizes the horror of this war. Well my dear readers I have a suggestion why don't we just create the "Shrine 11" Channel where we can show the buildings falling down. A channel where you can listen to the screams and the terror of those on the telephones and police radios. It is on that channel where at 9:11 every day there will be a moment of silence followed by country music singers preaching hate and chastising you for not remembering those who died.

For not supporting the President.

The article in my morning paper disgusted me with its attempts at selling me on the New World servitude. The author of this article even promoted the Patriot act and its fascist Ideas. Saying that maybe we have forgotten just how bad it was on September 11th.

I still can't figure out how we are to remember a day of failure. Why must relive a horrible time. Those who think that we have to keep living out this horrible day are in my opinion mentally ill.

They have to be to believe the nonsense. They seem to love basking in their denial.

Maybe the denial helps them cope with how God has died and has been replaced by a misfit prophet.

They fail to understand just how President Bush lies and how he continues to take broad strokes against those in Iraq that have a right to shoot back at uniformed operational forces.

I am not condoning that our troops be fired upon or even killed. I am however a little angered over how Bush is now calling Iraqis who defend their homes and not just dropping their weapons terrorists.

They are not terrorists.

Bush wants you to think they are.

The Fourth Geneva Convention, something the United States has signed on to honor is quite clear that a people under foreign military occupation have the right to militarily engage armed uniformed occupation forces.

This is not the same as terrorism.

This is self-defense against a group that Bush now with a smirk calls an offense.

He also misleads everyone with his silly little buzzwords that I have a hard time believing anyone is buying anymore.

I ran across an assessment of his half truths provided by Stephen Zunes who is an associate professor of Politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. He clearly points out that Bush's speech is riddled with all sorts of lies in order to manipulate the ignorant into thinking that we are justified in over spending and pushing the limits of the military for his little "crusade."

Below are some excerpts from the September 7 speech that were particularly misleading according to Zunes. I have highlighted Bush's words and Italicized the analysis of Zunes.

"And we acted in Iraq, where the former regime sponsored terror…"

The Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein indeed had sponsored terror over its nearly one- quarter of a century in power. However, according to both U.S. government agencies and independent researchers, Iraqi support for terrorism primarily took place in the 1980s, when the United States was quietly supporting the regime, and had dropped off dramatically since then. No significant Iraqi links have been found to Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups that currently threaten the United States.

"…possessed and used weapons of mass destruction,…"

Iraq did use weapons of mass destruction in the 1980s when the regime was being supported by the U.S. government, but not since then.

It also appears that virtually all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were destroyed or otherwise made unusable some time between five and eight years ago. Neither the United Nations nor the Bush Administration has been able to show any evidence that Iraq possessed such weapons in more recent years.

"…and for 12 years defied the clear demands of the United Nations Security Council."

It is true that Iraq openly defied or otherwise failed for twelve years to live up to demands of the UN Security Council regarding its destruction of and accountability for weapons of mass destruction, certain delivery systems, and other proscribed materials. However, once Iraq allowed the UN inspectors into their country for unfettered inspections last fall and ceded to UN demands regarding aerial reconnaissance, interviews with Iraqi scientists, and other means of insuring full Iraqi accountability several weeks later, one could argue that Iraq may have finally been in compliance with most, if not all, of those outstanding resolutions at the time of the U.S. invasion.

It should also be noted that Morocco, Israel and Turkey have failed to live up to demands of the UN Security Council for more than twice as long as did Iraq. Several other countries -- including Croatia, Indonesia, Sudan, Armenia, India, Pakistan and others -- continue to be in defiance of the UN Security Council from more recent resolutions. Despite these transgressions, however, the Bush Administration does not appear ready to invade these countries. Indeed, most of these countries receive military and economic aid from the U.S. government, raising serious questions as to whether the Bush Administration has ever really been concerned about the implementation of resolutions passed by the UN Security Council after all.

"Our coalition enforced these international demands in one of the swiftest and most humane military campaigns in history."

First of all, the initial invasion was almost exclusively an American military operation with the exception of British leadership in some southern parts of the country. It could therefore hardly be referred to as a "coalition."

More importantly, the invasion of Iraq was not an enforcement of these "international demands." The United Nations Charter clearly states that only the UN Security Council itself has the ability to authorize military enforcement of its resolutions. The Security Council, however, refused to authorize the United States to enforce these resolutions through military means despite enormous pressure by U.S. officials to do so.

Finally, it was hardly a humane military campaign. More than 5000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the U.S.-led assault, far surpassing the number of American civilians killed in the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

"For a generation leading up to September the 11th, 2001, terrorists and their radical allies attacked innocent people in the Middle East and beyond, without facing a sustained and serious response."

This is not true at all. During this period, countries where terrorists were harbored -- including Libya, Lebanon, Iraq, Sudan, and Afghanistan -- were subjected to major bombing campaigns (though more civilians than terrorists were killed during most of these military operations.) Sustained and serious responses by a series of American, Middle Eastern and European governments -- using a combination of aggressive police work, intelligence efforts, and paramilitary operations -- destroyed or severely weakened most of the major terrorist groups during this period, including Abu Nidal, the PFLP-GC, the PKK, Black September, and others.

"The terrorists became convinced that free nations were decadent and weak."

As anyone familiar with any serious study of Middle Eastern terrorism recognizes, there is no doubt on the part of anti-American extremists of the United States' military power. Indeed, the inability to take on U.S. military might directly is what has prompted these extremists to utilize the kind of irregular warfare that targets innocent civilians. Furthermore, the use of terror by groups like Al-Qaeda comes in large part from the hope that the United States will respond through disproportionate and poorly-targeted military actions that further alienate the general population and add to their ranks. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has fallen right into their trap.

"We have carried the fight to the enemy. We are rolling back the terrorist threat to civilization, not on the fringes of its influence, but at the heart of its power."

If one wants to find a geographic center of the terrorist threat, it is U.S. ally Saudi Arabia, from which most of the Al-Qaeda leadership, sixteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers, and most of the group's financial support comes. By contrast, none of Al-Qaeda's leadership, none of the 9/11 hijackers and none of the money trail appear to have come from Iraq.

However, the heart of terrorism's power comes not from any particular geographic location, but from the individual terrorists whose violent anti-Americanism is rooted in large part to years of U.S. support for repressive Arab dictatorships and Israeli occupation forces. Current U.S. policy is making enemies faster than we can kill them.

"In Iraq, we are helping the long suffering people of that country to build a decent and democratic society at the center of the Middle East. Together we are transforming a place of torture chambers and mass graves into a nation of laws and free institutions."

Most observers in Iraq have reported that the country is far from being "a decent and democratic society" and that foreign occupation forces are currently in charge of the legal system and governmental institutions.

Furthermore, the United States -- both currently and over the past three decades -- has been the single largest supporter of autocratic governments in the Arab world, raising serious questions as to whether freedom and democracy is even the goal of the United States in Iraq.

"The terrorists thrive on the support of tyrants and the resentments of oppressed peoples. When tyrants fall, and resentment gives way to hope, men and women in every culture reject the ideologies of terror, and turn to the pursuits of peace. Everywhere that freedom takes hold, terror will retreat."

This is very true. This begs the question, then, as to why the Bush Administration continues to arm and support tyrannical governments like those in Saudi Arabia and Egypt? These countries have produced far more anti-American terrorists that Iraq ever did, even under Saddam Hussein.

"The north of Iraq is generally stable and is moving forward with reconstruction and self-government."

Actually, because northern Iraq had been an autonomous area under Kurdish rule ever since mid-1991, the region had been generally stable and was moving forward with reconstruction and self-government well prior to the U.S. invasion. Since the U.S. invasion, however, there has been an upsurge in ethnic clashes and other violence.

"This violence is directed not only against our coalition, but against anyone in Iraq who stands for decency, and freedom and progress."

Some of the violence may indeed come from those who oppose decency, freedom and progress. However, history has shown that most people who have taken up arms against foreign occupation troops do so because they believe it is those who invaded and occupied their country who actually threaten its freedom and progress.

"Two years ago, I told the Congress and the country that the war on terror would be a lengthy war, a different kind of war, fought on many fronts in many places. Iraq is now the central front."

The U.S. invasion of Iraq was justified primarily on the grounds that Iraq supposedly possessed chemical and biological weapons and had an active nuclear weapons program. Only now, as it is becoming apparent that Iraq did not have such weapons or weapons programs after all, is the Bush Administration suddenly claiming that the reason for the United States to take over the country is that Iraq is now "the central front" of the "war on terror."

"Following World War II, we lifted up the defeated nations of Japan and Germany, and stood with them as they built representative governments. We committed years and resources to this cause. And that effort has been repaid many times over in three generations of friendship and peace. America today accepts the challenge of helping Iraq in the same spirit -- for their sake, and our own."

There are some key differences between Germany and Japan of 1945 and Iraq today. Germany had a democratic parliamentary system prior to Hitler seizing power in the early 1930s and Japan had some semblance of a constitutional monarchy prior to the rise of militarism in the late 1920s, whereas Iraq has never had a representative government. Germany and Japan were homogeneous societies with a strong sense of national identity, whereas Iraq is an artificial creation thrown together by colonial powers from three Ottoman provinces by and has only been truly independent for just 45 years; fighting between various Iraqi religious and ethnic groups has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands in recent decades. In addition, most Germans and Japanese recognized that their defeat and occupation was a direct result of their leaders' aggression against the countries' neighbors, whereas the Iraqis -- whose government was far weaker and less aggressive during its final twelve years than it was in the past -- are more prone to see the American takeover as an act of Western imperialism, not self-defense. As a result, it will be quite difficult for the United States to establish a widely accepted and stable regime. Finally, the idealistic New Deal liberals who helped create open political systems in post-war Germany and Japan arguably had a stronger personal commitment to democracy than the right-wing neoconservatives in the Bush administration, who have a history of supporting dictatorial governments that support U.S. strategic and economic interests.

"We are taking direct action against the terrorists in the Iraqi Theater, which is the surest way to prevent future attacks on coalition forces and the Iraqi people."

These kind of pro-active U.S. military operations against alleged terrorists in crowded urban areas tend to result in civilian casualties that will likely encourage attacks by both terrorists targeting civilians as well as other armed units targeting occupation soldiers.

More importantly, however, it is important to recognize that prior to the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, there were no car bomb attacks against UN offices, foreign embassies or places of worship. Since the U.S. takeover, however, Iraq has become a hotbed of terrorism. This raises serious questions as to whether invading other countries actually makes the world safer from terrorism or if such actions actually help create terrorism.

"Some countries have requested an explicit authorization of the United Nations Security Council before committing troops to Iraq. I have directed Secretary of State Colin Powell to introduce a new Security Council resolution, which would authorize the creation of a multinational force in Iraq, to be led by America…. [W]e cannot let past differences interfere with present duties. Members of the United Nations now have an opportunity -- and the responsibility -- to assume a broader role in assuring that Iraq becomes a free and democratic nation."

It is unlikely that the UN Security Council would take the unprecedented step of authorizing a multinational force to take part in an occupation which came through what most UN members see as an illegal invasion and a clear violation of the UN Charter. By contrast, if the United States was willing to transfer administration of Iraq to the United Nations -- creating a UN trusteeship like the one the Security Council set up in East Timor between the withdrawal of Indonesian occupation forces in 2000 and independence last year -- most countries capable of providing peacekeeping troops, financial support and technical expertise would probably do so. The United States has refused to allow the United Nations a significant role, however, insisting that the economic and political future of Iraq should be shaped primarily by the United States, not the international community. Until the United States allows the United Nations to take leadership, however, it is unfair to insist that UN members have a "responsibility" or a "duty" to help ameliorate the mess the United States has gotten itself into.

"I have expressed confidence in the ability of the Iraqi people to govern themselves. Now they must rise to the responsibilities of a free people and secure the blessings of their own liberty."

This statement may be preparing the way to convince Americans that, should the Bush Administration's policy fail, it will be the fault of the Iraqis themselves, not the government that invaded and occupied them.

"This budget request will also support our commitment to helping the Iraqi and Afghan people rebuild their own nations, after decades of oppression and mismanagement."

Iraq and Afghanistan were indeed ruled by regimes which were oppressive and mismanaged their economies. However, development officials on the ground in these countries have argued that most of the rebuilding that is needed is related to damage from years of heavy bombing and economic sanctions, which - particularly in the case of Iraq - were largely a result of U.S. policy. It is thus far unclear as to how much of the $87 billion requested of Congress will actually help in rebuilding these countries and how much will go to supporting U.S. occupation forces and well-connected U.S. multinational corporations involved in reconstruction and administration.

"We will provide funds to help them improve security. And we will help them to restore basic services, such as electricity and water, and to build new schools, roads, and medical clinics. This effort is essential to the stability of those nations, and therefore, to our own security."

Hopefully, this will indeed be the case. It should be pointed out, however, that security in Afghanistan and Iraq has actually decreased dramatically since the U.S. ousted the previous governments and basic services like electricity and water are less available in Iraq now than they were prior to the U.S. takeover.

"For the Middle East and the world, there will be no going back to the days of fear, when a brutal and aggressive tyrant possessed terrible weapons."

Hopefully, this will be true as well. However, none of Iraq's neighbors had expressed particular fear of Saddam Hussein once the 1991 Gulf War and subsequent sanctions and UN-led disarmament efforts apparently eliminated the regime's weapons of mass destruction and its offensive military capability. Not only did the U.S. invasion do nothing to improve the regional security situation, the Bush Administration has rejected calls for a weapons of mass destruction free zone for the entire Middle East, which could help prevent other tyrants from obtaining such weapons.

"We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness."

Again, there are no doubts among extremists in the Middle East regarding America's military strength. The perceived weakness is in regard to America's moral strength. Millions of people in the Middle East and beyond believe that it is morally wrong for the United States to support Arab dictatorships and Israeli occupation forces. They believe it is morally wrong that the amount of U.S. military aid to the Middle East is six times that of its economic aid. They believe it is morally wrong that the #1 U.S. export to the region is not consumer goods, high-tech equipment or agricultural products, but armaments. They believe it is morally wrong that a powerful country from the other side of the world would invade a sovereign Arab nation and justify it by falsely claiming that its government currently had weapons of mass destruction and was supporting Al-Qaeda. They believe it is morally wrong that U.S. bombing and sanctions against Muslim countries has killed far more civilians than have the terrorists themselves.

The unfortunate reality is that the more the United States has militarized the Middle East, the less secure we have become.

"And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans. We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities."

It is absurd to believe that those Iraqis and Afghanis currently fighting U.S. occupation forces in their own countries actually want to somehow sneak into the United States to fight Americans here. Indeed, no Afghans or Iraqis are known to have ever committed an act of terrorism against Americans on American soil.

The president's statement is essentially a retread of the line used by supporters of the Vietnam War that "If we don't fight them over there, we will have to fight them here." However, more than 28 years after the Communist victory in Vietnam, we are yet to fight the Vietnamese in our streets and there is no indication that we ever will. The Iraqis and Afghans, as were the Vietnamese, are fighting Americans because U.S. troops are in their country and, like the Vietnamese, will stop fighting Americans once U.S. troops leave their country.

I felt that this assessment was a lot better than I could have complied in the short time I have to research or even express by the deadlines I give myself. I felt it was vital to get to those who read my website so they can remember some of the things that history will probably gloss over about George W. Bush.

I want to reinforce to you that while you are remembering 911 in your own way you must also remember that George W. Bush will continue to tell you what you fear and many people who lack discernment will continue follow lock step behind him.

I have never seen a tragedy met with so much religious reverence as 911. Even though there have been many other tragedies and events that we could reflect on we conveniently reflect on this event because we are stuck in a loop.

With most tragedies you grieve for a while, you acknowledge that the horror is over and then every once in a while you grieve briefly again. However what I am seeing is nothing more than indulgence. Maybe we enjoy our guilt. Maybe we enjoy the hate.

Maybe we just don't want to heal.

I realize that for some people its remembrance, but I really don't think we realize that for them it is a means to guarantee that the blood laced with fear will taste better once it is sucked out of us along with our souls.

I know there are so many people who are grieving. I can't be callous and say that they are unjustified in their sadness. I just wonder if we can see enough through our tears and grief to understand that even in our hour of remembrance we are enabling a delusional America.

In our cemetery grief we forget that the vampires are still loose and many of them are among us and that they tell us that they are looking out for our safety. Some have even infested the sacred grounds of the church. Now they are making their collective in our government. They have convinced many people that they are the Gods of protection and security. In reality they are the God's of death. They are the new lords of chaos. Perhaps even the alien threat we have speculated about.

While the whine of the bagpipes, and the fighter jets flying in formation are a flaunting reminder of how our pain is unique I am beginning to see just how this tragedy is being exploited for gain. It is a new cash cow and a manipulative bit of history that is being used for evil in the name of God, and patriotism.

I would feel better about remembering the dead if I knew that their memory wasn't tainted with stricter restrictions on my freedom.

I would be the first to fly my flag at half-staff if I could see that my president was making an effort to clear away the disinformation that he continues to parrot from his masters.

I would be first in line to cry real tears if I weren't forced to hear how I am an ugly person for objecting to the playing of the emergency phone calls on the National networks.

I don't have to know how ugly it was by watching people jump from the buildings. I am seeing it again and again. I am hearing the screams of terror and the sirens.

There are people who rail against the networks for playing what they perceive is pornography yet they subject themselves to horrific images that amount to the most watched and re-watched snuff films in history.

I don't need to relive it to remember it.

It's inescapable. The tributes, the retrospectives, the broken bodies, the blood, the speeches, the warm and fuzzy gestures, the teddy bears, the flowers, the reporters pretending to care, the hero worship and the exploiting.

You try to go through the hard business of trying to get on with your life and you cope with the past.

And when you have to hear about the last gasp of life, the anger, and the hate, you have to stop and your ask yourself if this will continue long after George W. Bush is president?

I predict that it won't.

I contend that if you have to continue reliving this event, and if you have to watch transfixed to every retrospective showing the planes ramming into concrete, steel, flesh, blood, and bone then I think you need to get some professional help.

It's either that or someone wants you to get all worked up because that once you are triggered to fear again you will demand that "unreasonable obstacles" be removed in the laws that are there to protect you.

Sure you are told that these changes to these laws are here to protect you but I just don't feel any less or any more safe than I used to and revoking my liberties in a time of grief is something that I have the sense to avoid.

It is easier to convince people of a fantasy when they are troubled.

A recent poll shows that about 70% of Americans believe that Iraq was involved in 9/11. It seems to be increasing now that we are allegedly fighting the terrorists in Iraq. Even if the so called terrorists are frail women suckling their dehydrated children. Even if they are frightened men with guns who feel the need to defend their own beliefs, their own liberties, and freedom they perceive in their minds.

Anymore that is all that freedom is.

A state of mind.

HOME | FORUM | FEEDBACK | TERMS
Copyright 1998-2007 Ground Zero Media, Clyde Lewis, and John Hart. All Rights Reserved.