Customize

"Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

Discussion in 'Senator Xenophon And Scientology' started by RevModemac, Dec 6, 2009.

  1. _You_ Member

    Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    ^
  2. _You_ Member

    Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    Well if you want to call the NSW police press liason officer and get a statement on how the investigation is progressing then feel free add to that thread but I doubt you'd learn anything new.
  3. anonhuff Member

    Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    Not to mention that there isn't anything (unless you are an ex with evidence to provide to NSW police) that anons can really do on the police side of things as they stand there.

    There is still a lot that can be done on this topic, and it is worth fretting over in my opinion.
  4. _You_ Member

    Re: Aussie government rejects Xenophon's request to investigate Scientology

    Chuh! Of course, someone "close-ish" does.
  5. OTBT Member

    Re: Aussie government rejects Xenophon's request to investigate Scientology

    Cyrus Brooks attempted to bring in Scientology "Refugees" from Eastern Europe a few years ago, but I can't find any evidence of success.

    You can search yourself if you want:

    AustLII Results - scientology

    Cyrus Brooks tried importing foreigners using "visitor visas" a few years ago. Sorry, can't find any recent docs, but here are a few results from around 2002:

    AustLII Results - scientology

    Here's one of them:

    Aoki, Hiroko [2001] MRTA 5787

    Not trying to hijack this thread. If anyone is interested, a new thread can be started to poke around for info. All I was trying to show in earlier post was that Australia doesn't seem to accept the "refugee" status of "persecuted religion" foreign scientologists. Cyrus Brooks failed in that particular attempt.
  6. 3rdMan Member

    Re: Aussie government rejects Xenophon's request to investigate Scientology

    ^^^Just an FYI for those not reading the whole thread and think the press-release is true.
  7. Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    To win or not that is the question.
  8. _You_ Member

    Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    While it would be nice for the major parties to be supporting the inquiry, notice how Xenophon managed to send the public debate directly to "Which authority should investigate Scientology's abuses?" instead of "Should the cult be investigated?".
  9. DeathHamster Member

    Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    The major parties should consider that the next time a Scientologist commits suicide or goes Mr Stabby, Xenophon will remind the public who opposed the inquiry.
  10. _You_ Member

    Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    A few salient points (in my opinion):

    1. A police investigation is not as good as a Senate inquiry because it is not as public and will not receive the same amount of media coverage. When the police investigate, if no charges are forthcoming they drop it. When the Senate investigates, they publish findings with all the evidence supporting complaints against CoS even if they don't take any remedial action.

    2. The "r" word is a big obstacle but also the perception of the senators that this is a matter for law enforcement. The way to solve this is to convince them that an inquiry is needed to discern proper public policies.
  11. Lorelei Member

    Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    The "r" word does freeze some politicians' blood, but the question must be asked:

    What makes something a religion? If you or I were to claim that our specific gathering of loons were a religion, what would be the test we'd need to pass in order to get that claim taken seriously and to get benefits from the government (e.g., tax breaks, and politicians scared to death of being accused of religious bigotry if their criticism hurt our feelings)?

    There are other global "movements / religions," serious and otherwise, that do not qualify for this kind of white glove treatment, even if they now possibly outnumber Scientologists globally. Could you get special goodies and benes for being into the FSM and his noodly appendages, a follower of the Tao of The Dude / Dudeism, Tarvuism, Kibology, etc.; or if you claim to be a Jedi, or admire J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, or sign up to be a Universal Life minister online? Does it just take enormous cohones made of titanium and a huge amount of gall and fervor to get acceptance as a religion? Most of the aforementioned movements are largely composed of easy-going, genial types with a sense of humour and tongue firmly stuck in cheek, who aren't into defrauding anyone, don't bother often with meeting en masse offline, don't go about trying to seriously convert anyone, and aren't known for constantly grubbing money or demanding privileges as self-proclaimed clergy members / parishioners.

    Pre-Internet, Scientology spread like a cancer. I suspect that if it had been a brand new movement post-Internet, it would be seen in the same light as these movements, or a wacky self-help trend / fad, or as a slightly worrying bunch of loons that might decide at any moment to buy matching Nikes and sweatsuits, eat a mess of Jell-O pudding, and leave their meatbodies to ride a comet tail at any moment.

    Tealdeer: Just because a group claims to be a religion, does that MAKE it a religion? And even if it does, then does claiming to be a religion excuse human rights abuses and fraud? Other religions are not immune to examination from outsiders (see Catholic priest pedophilia cases). The FBI steps in if cults / religions start stockpiling weapons and acting openly crazy. Why does Scientology get a free pass? Is it because they shamelessly threaten to sue, or lie repeatedly even when they and everyone else knows they are lying, or BAAAWWW loudly when confronted with its bad policies and behaviors?

    Seriously. I'd like to know. What makes Scientology so damn special? Longevity, lying spokespeople, a big war chest full of bucks to throw at problems, and mean, snaky lawyers?
  12. Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    The next time a Christian commits suicide or goes Mr. Stabby should we call out every governmental official who didn't call for inquiry into christians?
  13. themadhair Member

    Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    If there was a particular Christian organisation that had a history of exploiting their followers in the way Scientology does, and if this same Christian organisation had pressured one of their followers into suicide in the way Scientology did with McBride and if this same Christian organisation had a legion of ex-members speaking out loudly about the abuses this Christian organisation is continuing to commit…..then you might be getting into the ballpark of making a valid point rather than making a comment you mistook for being insightful.
  14. greebly Member

    Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    The point here is to create an avenue for govt legislation to act upon.
    Scientology itself it's not the issue and so goes for other bodies/organisations that place control upon it's members or it's beliefs.

    Highlighted as to previous harpoons cover and should cover:

    Illegal medical practice
    Coercion
    Un-certified mental health treatment
    fraud
    addmore here....

    Mentral health professionals are governed and monitored, so why not others who deal with issues of the "mind".

    Another point is wether these entities help the surrounding community beyond members of the body itself.

    This is where the inquiry can take root, also if the government is worried it is singling out one organisation, they could after the inquiry create legislation to cover all bodies/sects/organsiations.

    Scientology is simply the most prevelant and has the highest public concern.

    And before another reply comes saying "well there are nutjobs everywhere, not Xs fault", did these nutjobs receive the right care? and if not why?
  15. Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    You're close, but still missing the point. You cannot logically take an instance of a scientologist killing themselves or committing a violent act and then saying it happened because of scientology. Even if you could show such causality you still cannot logically say such actions would have been prevented by initiating inquiry into Scientology.
  16. _You_ Member

    Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    he means commits suicide or kills under the circumstances of other scientologists who have done this in reaction to or under the auspices of their "religion." if some christians killed themselves in such a way, then the government should take action, then yes if another incident followed they should get an earful. if you are going to try to pick apart arguments (which is generally easy to do or at least easier than building them up), then think first so you can make a decent analogy.
  17. Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    Do you really want to go there? Do you really want to talk about how many incidents we see of unstable people committing violence because their god told them to do so or because they thought it had to be done because of religious teachings they had encountered?
  18. Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    Well let's go here then:
    1. The Scientology incorporation has thousands of people saying they came out under influence of mind control. It is by far the largest religion type organization to have so many of its ex users say they were coerced into their "beliefs" And that is considering other bona fide religions have a lot more members.
    2.We have definite proof that the Scientology belief system, created by LR Hubbard, creates a belief in the adherent rather than relies on the individuals internal belief system making it subject to question of being called a religion after the us first amendment.
    3. The use of lie detectors is unparalleled as it harvests thoughts and memories, making Scientology beliefs subject to manipulation.
    4. The tax that Scientology saves in Australia goes directly to America. Why should Australians pay money out of their tax system that goes directly offshore?
    5. Scientologists on whole are individuals who are encouraged to get into debt for "religious counseling" This puts a large drain on public social and health schemes, creates poverty within the society and in Australia's case most of that money spent goes to the US therefore helping to create a downward economy.
    6. This is just the tip of the iceburg.
    23td86.jpg
    pic relevant
  19. Herro Member

    Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    p
  20. themadhair Member

    Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    In the case of McPherson, McBride, Linda Waliki, etc. I can indeed say those things happened because of the involvement of Scientology.
    Yes I can. If the organisation is committing abuses and fucking people over is investigated and subject to restrictions and/or getting b& or v& then the organisation is prevented from committing said abuses and fucking people over. Worked pretty well with the mafia imo.
    I know you think you are being clever by continually trying to equivocate personal beliefs with an abusive organisation that fucks people over for money, but it is little more than an ignorant strawman from somehow who knows better but chooses not to think before hitting the submit button.
    If Al Qaeda, for example, tried to convince their followers to do shit in the name of Allah then I’m pretty sure international authorities would come down on their ass. Oh wait….
  21. _You_ Member

    Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    Yes. I absolutely do. First off you have reversed the agent and principal in what I said. I talked about a church encouraging such behavior not an individual's interpretation reflecting on the church. Secondly, yes the government should look into discernible trends amongst all who do this. We certainly do so with radical islam and catholic priests are now presumed pedophiles by many or at least sensible people would not leave their child with a priest (myself included and i am a church-going catholic).

    But what I take issue with now is this nonsense:

    "You're close, but still missing the point. You cannot logically take an instance of a scientologist killing themselves or committing a violent act and then saying it happened because of scientology. Even if you could show such causality you still cannot logically say such actions would have been prevented by initiating inquiry into Scientology."

    If he could show such causality, then it wouldn't matter because you can't show that the inquiry would have prevented it? Are you serious? Any chance of preventing it would be adequate. Do you mean to say that it would be wrong for an Australian constituent to be angry at his senator for not initiating such an inquiry because there is a possibility it could have failed? Are you suggesting a post hoc erego procter hoc? Or, are you saying that for an Australian politician to sit on his hands and do nothing is the same as taking action because that action may prove in vain? What good is a police investigation? Do you listen to yourself speak?

    Surely, you are a professor of logic at a prestigious university.

    If you are going to make yourself the policeman of this forum, then you sure as hell had better make your arguments airtight and for god's sake show some respect instead of leading people along like children by saying "you're close, but...." Yes, I know I am being hypocritical here.
  22. _You_ Member

    Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    Well said, I was in the midst of posting whilst you posted your perfectly good take down of the smug bullshit posted above.
  23. DeathHamster Member

    Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    A weak argument. Compare the number of Christians to the very few Scientologists.
  24. themadhair Member

    Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    Don’t let him/her/it off with their equivocating organisations with personal beliefs. It only gives him/her/it the delusion of self-credibility.
  25. DeathHamster Member

    Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    Really, why not?
    The Associated Press: Australian blames Scientology for brother's death
    "It's hard to describe the anger that my family and myself feel about the church's conduct before and after my brother's death," McBride told reporters in Parliament House.

    A state coroner found last month that Edward McBride, a 30-year-old army commando who was born a Roman Catholic, received 19 phone calls and text messages from Australian members of the church in the three days before he deliberately electrocuted himself at a power station in the east coast city of Brisbane. He was a trained electrician.

    "I believe the bombardment of 19 telephone messages backed him into a corner and he just had no room to breathe," Stephen McBride said.
    You go tell Stephen McBride that he can't do that. (Or did you already?)

    If the badgering caused it, and they weren't allowed to do that or give quack medical advice, yes, I could say that, quite logically, unlike yourself.

    This is even weaker than the last one.
  26. Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    McPhearson I'll give you. If what happened to her wasn't negligent homicide then I don't know what is. We don't know whether scientology had anything to do with McBride's suicide, much less caused it. According to the coroner's findings, "the church of scientology could not have reasonably forseen that he would take his life." Defence Force 'bullies' cleared over suicide | The Australian. As for Waliki and the ect ect, sure going of psych meds didn't help and most likely played a part in those tragic acts. However it wasn't scientology that caused those violent acts. The closest you can come is the decision to go off the drugs. For the state to prevent such actions, it would have to mandate that certain citizens have to take certain drugs, because scientology is far from the only thing that encourages people to go off their meds. Those are not very good examples for the case you are trying to make.

    I am not at all equivocating personal beliefs and organizations. I am arguing against precisely that.

    What I was critiquing was the assumption that you could hold a senator accountable for a scientologist committing a violent act against themselves or others. I'm saying you can't. It's entirely unreasonable. You have to show that the person committed the violent act because of scientology and after that you have to show that inquiry into scientology would have prevented that. I brought up the issue of people doing violent things based upon christian beliefs to try to get people to realize that we don't hold groups accountable for actions individuals take it upon themselves to enact.

    I think the problem is that many people here have been involved with scientology criticism long enough that their critical thinking process just shuts down as soon as you start talking about scientology. People in this thread seem to think that a scientologist committing a violent act is akin to a convicted child molester abusing another victim- it's inevitable, they can't help themselves, it's just a matter of time. And that's the problem, this assumption that scientologists are dangerous and likely to hurt themselves or others. Say someone from chanology flips out and shoots up an org, should everyone in WWP be viewed as dangerous individuals? Absolutely not. What about the vast majority of scientologists that go about their daily lives and never hurt anybody? Where do they fit in to all of this? It just isn't reasonable to assume someone is going to hurt themselves or others because they're a scientologist. Just like it isn't reasonable to assume a Muslim is going to blow himself up just because he's a Muslim. Just food for thought.
  27. DeathHamster Member

    Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    What vast majority?
  28. Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    Conservative estimates put scientology at 25,000-50,000 members in the US. Double that for the total number around the world. How many have killed themselves or engaged in violence against others because of scientology? How many does that leave you with. That vast majority.
  29. Sponge Member

  30. themadhair Member

    Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    I would point to the handing over of five grand plus the twenty grand loan plus the phone call pestering as being strong evidence of the cult breaking a person down. Except this was one of the cases where they pushed too hard and too far. This is one of many reasons the investigation is being called for.
    Why do you misrepresent things so blatantly when you try to debate? Are you seriously trying to tell me that a cult of unqualified medical personnel dispensing misinformation and scaremongering to vulnerable people to the point where tragedy of the above nature occurs could merely be summed up by the trite bs that such ‘didn’t help’?
    Just like telling someone to go off their heart medication didn’t cause the heart attack. It is technically true but little more than a semantic sleight of hand of a person determined to miss the point.
    If you ignore the facts of each case and only look at them through blinders then yes.
    Stating this while your posts are rife with such equivocation is laughable. Your analogy with the Christians relies solely on this precise fallacy.
    Only if you ignore the testimony of ex-members warning it will happen and the examples where it has happened. If you ignore all that then of course it is unreasonable to expect anybody to expect such to happen in the future.
    In the case of Linda Waliki and Jeremy Perkins I’d say the evidence is pretty overwhelming that Scientology contributed and that restrictions placed on the Scientology organisation would help prevent such in future.
    It is almost as if you are equivocating the personal beliefs of Christians with the Scientology organisation. It is almost as if you drawing an equivalence between the personal beliefs of Christians and how they act with the pressure and control of the Scientology organisation upon their members and how that pressure can lead to abuse, fraud and, in the case of crap medical advice, a serious bloodbath. Almost, but since you have clarified that you are not making such an equivocation in your post it cannot be the case.
    FTFY.
    Actually it is less of an assumption and more of an extrapolation of the last five or so decades of actions, abuse and fraud carried out by the Scientology organisation.
    Seems you are doing that equivocating thing again. What you need to make this analogy relevant is some of the following:
    1) A history of the chappie getting defrauded by WWP and the actions of WWP causing severe financial hardship.
    2) A history of WWP calling this person and exerting tremendous pressure on him/her that contributed to their snapping.
    3) A history of WWP giving dangerous medical advice that caused this individual to stop taking their medication, where the lack of such medication contributed to the flipping out.
    I could be wrong here, but the last I checked the request was for an investigation into the ‘Church of Scientology’, a criminal organisation, and not ‘Scientologists’, victims of the aforementioned organisation. Oh wait, you were doing another inaccurate and fallacious equivocation again. Sneaky devil.
    But it is reasonable to assume someone is going to get defrauded or end up hurting themselves and/or others on the basis of dangerous medical advice and/or tremendous psychological pressure because they are members of a dangerous cult.
    But it is reasonable to assume that a Muslim is going to blow himself up if he is a member of terrorist organisation with a history of such activities. You did that equivocation thing where you confused personal beliefs with dangerous organisations. You could try claiming you didn’t a second time and hope everyone is thick. Never know, it might just work.
  31. Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    We should log and file all scientology related deaths on a page including suicides, accidents etc.. and get some stats on this. I am sure it is higher than "normal" organizations.
  32. Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    The madhair, if you think that being a part of scientology makes you dangerous and likely to hurt yourself or others, I don't really know what else to say other than that you should take a step back and really think about what you are saying. All of your issues with what I am saying hinge upon that. You are essentially saying that scientology makes people do bad things. I don't think that's reasonable.
  33. _You_ Member

    Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    Granting that that is what it boils down to, I can't disagree more. I think it's reasonably, and I think stories like Aaron Saxton's where people have said how Scientology made people do bad things. And I don't just mean they did bad things in the name of Scientology. I mean the higher-ups in the church ordered them to. Granted I don't have the statistics and what I just said was anecdotal, but I believe that per capita Scientologists do more bad things (increasingly so as you go up the church hierarchy). Scientology itself dehumanizes by design. I think that is a fundamental belief of most of this on this site and why we do what we do.
  34. Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    Perhaps you are right. Based upon what I have observed, I just don't see it. But this thread has really strayed far. So in the interest of productivity I'll just let it go.
  35. Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    Of course its fucking reasonable. Are you serious?
    #1 They fuck with peoples minds and create false memories from this and past lives. This can make people go crazy and results in a lot of self harm and is fairly well documented.
    #2 They encourage the limitation of drugs in highly psychotic people causing all kinds of damage. This is well documented. Ay least two counts of children stabbing their parents to death in recent years.
    #3 They over work and over caffeinate their people which causes many deaths and accidents. This is well documented.

    And saying all that it is easy to presume that 80-90% of what we don't know is covered up. You just have to talk to an ex to get the big picture on this.
  36. themadhair Member

    Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    I certainly do, and I think the plethora of instances where exactly that has happened, the testimony which details the processes to accomplish such and the written policy letters and scriptures that lay out those processes all add up to compelling evidence imo.

    Let me give you the following thoughts:
    1) Processes such as auditing, TR’s and drills make folks that bit more suggestible.
    2) Redefining the meanings of the very words a person uses to construct their worldview is a methodology capable of changing that worldview.
    3) Processes such as those described in early works such as ‘Self Analysis’ right through to the advanced levels including solo NOTS are conducive to false memory syndrome.
    4) States of suggestibility combined with the lucid suggestions contained in Hubbard’s words results in the implanting of those suggestions.
    5) Courses such as the ‘Ups&Downs In Life’ present an overly simplistic model of the world that directly contribute to isolation from the wider world as well as inducing an antagonism towards that wider world.
    6) Material is presented in such a way as to make the individual believe they have made their own decisions despite being carefully manipulated into reaching those decisions. The result of this is to add ego and pride into the controlling mechanisms.
    7) A system of ethics is instilled whereby the word ethics can only have meaning with reference to Scientology and Scientology policies. The concept of ‘greatest good across the greatest number of dynamics’ combined with excessive weight on the third dynamic (i.e. groups, and usually only the Scientology organisation) leads to the inevitable scenario where protecting the group (the Scientology organisation) is more important than the either the law or the wellbeing of individuals.
    8) Many of the Scientology processes are aimed at destroying parts of the ‘self’. Eliminating the reactive, ridding oneself of engrams/body thetans, TR’s and drills that remove instincts, etc. Destroying the ‘self’ or a person is a time honoured cult programming technique.

    The above, as a system of belief and associated scriptures, can only produce the dangerous and abusive situations we see in the Scientology organisation when additional techniques such as love-bombing, harassment and legal intimidation of enemies, the RPF, the level of isolation from the outside world, etc. These cultish elements are the final piece of the puzzle that make organised Scientology the institutional vehicle of fraud and abuse it is today, and they can only come about through an actual cultic organisation. You dismantle the organisation and you help remove many of the elements needed to turn the above 8 points into the dangerous cult we see.

    If you join Scientology you will be milked for money. If you do not have sufficient unlimited wealth and are coerced into joining staff you will be made pressure others out of their cash. If you are dedicated enough (or were manipulated) into joining the Sea Org then, assuming you are not perpetually EPF’d or RPF’d, you will be forced to pressure and bully people into doing bad things. If you are were young enough and psycho enough to get called up for the CMO then you will be made do the nastiest shit in the whole of Scientology. With the exception of the CMO and SO which act on currently unleaked Flag orders, every scenario in this paragraph is detailed in policy letter after policy letter after policy letter.

    Sure, you might remain a public who gets milked and never do a bad thing in your life. But, last I checked, the inquiry was into the Scientology organisation and not the public Scientologists. And, to be honest, it is getting somewhat tiresome to have to continually repeat this relevant and crucial point that you are deliberately ignoring.
  37. _You_ Member

    Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    Exactly. Hubbard set the whole thing up to enable him to sell his stuff, and to aggrandize himself. There was no other purpose. To get there, it required policies on control of information, control of people, emphasis on production, stats, income, etc., then disguise these policies as self-serving immutable truths. Since Hubbard set the whole thing for his own benefit, he never put in place proper mechanism for a proper takeover, hence Miscavige came along, easily took reigns as per the-most-sociopathic-wins-all, and there was no self-correcting mechanisms in place to prevent this, or whoever comes next.

    One can go through all the countless Scientology policies, and easily point out hint or outright obvious statement re. the fundamentally self-serving nature of Scientology. It's all about making people become desensitized producers, any 'win' is incidental.
  38. _You_ Member

    Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    Has anyone received anything other than form responses to second emails they've sent the Senators?

    I realise that they're somewhat closed for business now, but I've only received 3(!?!) so far. [One positive, one neutral, one "your outside of the country," but all form replies.]

    Ta muchly.
  39. _You_ Member

    Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    They aren't exactly closed for business as much as having returned from Canberra to their offices in their home states and meeting with constituents etc.
  40. Timmibal Member

    Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

    Think about what you just asked.

    It's Scientology.

    Consider the sheer number of poons that are being launched from both sides of the issue. TBH I'd be surprised if they're even being READ by the senators without being vetted for samefag by an aide.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins