[News] Drama of the popular struggle for democracy in Kenya

[Anti-Imperialist News]

Drama of the popular struggle for democracy in Kenya

http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/45210


Horace Campbell (2008-01-03)

National elections were held in Kenya on December 
27, 2007; the results of the Presidential 
election were announced three days later. Within 
minutes of the announcement that Mwai Kibaki had 
emerged as the winner, there were spontaneous 
acts of opposition to the government in all parts 
of the country. The opposition was especially 
intense among the jobless youths who had voted 
overwhelmingly for change. A ruling clique that 
had stolen billions of dollars in a period of 
five years had stolen the elections. This was the 
verdict of the poor. However, this verdict was 
obscured by ethnic alienation and the constant 
refrain by local and foreign intellectuals that 
the crisis and killings emanated from deep 
‘tribal’ hostilities. This tribal narrative was 
intensified after the burning and killings of 
innocent civilians in a church, in Eldoret, in 
the Rift Valley region of Kenya. But while these 
killings had all of the hallmarks of the 
genocidal violence of Rwanda and Burundi, more 
importantly, they heightened the need for Kenyan 
society to step back from the brink of all out 
war. Violence and killings provided a feedback 
loop that threatened to engulf even the political leaders of the society.

This analysis argues that the calls for peace and 
reconciliation by the political and religious 
leaders will remain hollow until there are 
efforts to break from the recursive processes of 
looting, extra judicial killings, rape and 
violation of women, and general low respect for African lives.

This short commentary on the elections and the 
aftermath seeks to introduce a unified 
emancipatory approach: liberating humanity from 
the mechanical, competitive, and individualistic 
constraints of western philosophy, and 
re-unifying Kenyans with each other, the Earth, 
and spirituality. This analysis draws from 
fractal theory and seeks to place Africans as 
human beings at the center of the analysis. 
Fractal theory is founded on aspects of the 
African knowledge system and breaks the old 
tribal narratives that refer to Africans as sub 
humans needing Civilization, Christianity and Commerce.
Those who condemn the post-election violence in 
Kenya have failed to condemn the traditions of 
killings and economic terrorism in Kenya. It 
should be stated clearly that using African women 
as guinea pigs for western pharmaceuticals is 
just as outrageous as burning innocent women and 
children in churches. Rape and violation of 
women, and exploitation of the poor and of 
jobless youth have been overlooked by the 
commentators who focus on one component of the 
matrix of exploitation in Kenya -- ethnicity.

In tandem with much of the current discourse on 
fractal theory, this commentary is addressed to 
progressive intellectuals from Kenya and calls 
for a revolutionary paradigmatic transformation- 
one that is intrinsic to African knowledge 
systems and can be witnessed in practice in the 
everyday activities of African life. 
Revolutionary transformations are necessary to 
break from the processes that have been unleashed 
in Kenya and East Africa since British 
colonialism and the British Gulag. This break 
requires revolutionary ideas in Kenya, along with 
revolutionary leaders and new forms of political 
organization. Thus far, neo-liberal capitalism 
and neo-liberal democratic organizations, along 
with the focus on party organization have created 
leaders who organize for political power. These 
leaders are not even concerned about forming 
lasting political parties. Far more profound 
transformations are required in Kenya, beyond the 
winning of elections. However, until new ideas 
and new leaders emerge, the current struggles 
will serve to educate the poor on the limitations 
of the old politics and ethnic alliances that 
privilege sections of the Kenyan capitalist class.

The analysis is presented as a drama of three 
acts. The first act was played out in the form of 
the election campaign. The second act involved 
the drama after the announcement of the results 
and the violent reactions from all sections of 
the society. The third act of this drama 
continues to unfold with the call for a fractal 
analysis that will place revolutionary 
transformation as the central question on the 
political agenda in Kenya and East Africa.

Act One – The Struggles over the election and the campaign for the Presidency.

The Scene: Kenya had been the epi- center of 
imperial domination in East Africa from the 
period of British colonialism. Caroline Elkins in 
the book, Britain’s Gulag, has documented for 
posterity the extreme violence and murders 
bequeathed to the Kenyan political culture by the 
British government. At independence in December 
1963, Britain handed over power to people who, in 
essence, agreed to act as junior partners with 
British capitalism in Eastern and Central Africa. 
This partnership included an acceptance by the 
ruling class in Kenya of the western European 
forms of land ownership that stated that Africans 
had to be modernized from their “tribal” and 
“backward” ways. For forty years, Kenya was 
presented as a success story where a parasitic 
middle class and a thriving Nairobi Stock 
Exchange (composed of foreign capital) sought to 
prove that capitalism could take root in Africa.

Act 1 Scene Two of this drama took the form of a 
campaign for the tenth Parliament of Kenya. The 
drama of the struggle for change in Kenya was 
played out before the world in the form of an 
electoral struggle that gripped the society for 
many months. At the end of Scene Two one of the 
principal props of this drama – the local media - 
reported that the results were like a “blood 
bath.” The headline screamed “ energized voters 
sweep out Vice President, Cabinet Ministers and 
seasoned politicians as wind of change blows 
across the country.” But the newspapers were not 
yet aware of the implications of using language 
like “blood bath” in their headlines. Every one 
awaited the final results of the news of who 
would be President. The results were being 
delayed while the votes were being cooked. As 
news of the parliamentary routing of the 
incumbent President and his allies in the Party 
of National Unity (PNU) splashed on the streets, 
on the screens and on text messages while the 
principal actors and actresses of the drama, the 
people of Kenya, sought spontaneous actions to 
ensure that they were not silenced by the power 
brokers who had placed themselves at the head of 
the movement for change. These central actors and 
actresses (wananchi) had enthusiastically 
participated in the election campaign 
articulating their demand for peace, 
reconstruction and transformation of Kenyan society.

By the time of the third scene of this drama, 
those from the den of thieves around the 
incumbent Mwai Kibaki sought to silence the 
media. In order for this scene to be played out 
without an audience, international observers and 
the media (both national and international) were 
ejected from Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK) 
election center at the Kenyatta International 
Conference Centre. The Chairperson of the ECK 
went to a small room and announced the results of 
the elections naming Mwai Kibaki as the winner of 
the election. Three days later, the same 
chairperson of the ECK said in the media that he 
was not sure if Kibaki won the elections.

Earlier in the drama Raila Odinga’s team of 
regional barons and aspiring capitalists argued 
that the true results of the elections showed 
that Raila Odinga had been chosen by the majority 
of the main players to be the leading man on the 
Kenyan stage. How was it possible for his 
Movement to win over one hundred seats in the 
Parliament (when Kibaki’s den of thieves had won 
less than thirty parliamentary seats) and still 
lose the Presidency? Local and foreign observers 
cried foul. The elections had been rigged. Ballot 
boxes had been stuffed. Results were being 
announced that did not correspond to the votes 
from the constituencies. The integrity of the 
process was flawed. These voices were soon 
drowned out by the might and power of those with 
strategic control over the military and media 
sections of the performance. Neo-liberal politics 
include rigging, so that the international 
observers used ‘measured’ language of 
“irregularities,” “anomalies” and “weighty 
issues” to conceal the reality of outright theft. 
Raila Odinga termed the process a “civilian 
coup.” But international capital became confused, 
because, after all the precedent of election 
rigging in Florida,U.S.A in 2000 had given the 
green light to electoral fraud internationally.

The Swearing in of President Kibaki

Act One Scene Three of this drama was performed 
within the guarded confines of State House where 
parastatal executives, mostly defeated cabinet 
members and a small section of the media were 
invited. In this scene, Mwai Kibaki was sworn in 
as the Third President of the Republic of Kenya. 
The stage and setting of this scene was markedly 
different from the previous swearing in at the 
Uhuru Park (in Nairobi) where an enthusiastic 
audience had cheered on the President on December 
30, 2002. The 2007 swearing in scene had to be 
played out without the audience because the 
principal actors and actresses did not endorse 
this new act. Minutes after the announcement of 
the victory of Kibaki, there were spontaneous 
demonstrations all over the country, especially 
the urban areas. Popular outrage at the theft of 
the elections brought violence and the killings 
of innocent civilians in Kakamega, Kisumu, 
Mombassa, Nairobi, Nakuru and other centers. The 
police killed innocent demonstrators as the 
foreign media portrayed the demonstrations in 
ethnic terms. The gendered, class and ethnic 
dimensions of the opposition to Kibaki began to 
be played out in the poor communities that were 
called slums, but the media focused on one 
dimension, the ethnic alienation of the poor and exploited.

Hundreds of dead brought home the reality that 
the elections and vote counting were simply one 
site of struggle in the quest to break the old 
politics of exploitation and dehumanization in 
Kenya. However, because so much of the old 
politics of exploitation had been masked by the 
politicization of ethnicity, poor members of the 
Kikuyu nationality were targeted in some 
communities, with the killings in Eldoret 
bringing home the long traditions of ethnic 
cleaning that had been going on in this region 
during the Moi regime. The same media neglected 
to report that poor Kalenjin also torched the 
home of former President Arap Moi.

Would there be a break from this recursive process of killing of the poor?
Odinga and members of the Pentagon condemned the 
killings of members of a particular ethnic group 
but the anger was too deep for the youths to 
listen. Unfortunately, the ODM did not have 
structures to properly mobilize the youths away from looting.

Raila Odinga and the Orange Democratic Movement

In order to avert the possible war that could 
emanate from this new act of the drama there was 
the need for fresh if not revolutionary ideas to 
harness the pent up energies of the people for 
change. The radicalization of Kenyan politics had 
merged with the anti- globalization forces 
internationally to the point where in 2007 Kenya 
hosted the World Social Forum. The radical 
demands of the Bamako appeal of the Africa Social 
Forum (for profound social, economic and gender 
transformations in Africa) could not be carried 
forward by the old Non Governmental Organization 
elements allied with international NGO’s from 
Western Europe. What the World Social Forum had 
demonstrated was the reality that new 
revolutionary ideas with new revolutionary forms 
of organization were needed to realize the goals 
and aspirations and appeal of the Africa social 
forum. Raila Odinga and his group of regional 
ethnic barons had tapped into the radical 
sentiments of the youth all across the ethnic 
divisions. Calling his team, the Pentagon, Odinga 
mobilized the popular discourses about youth, 
women and disabled to speak about ‘poverty eradication’ and “corruption.”

Absent from the platform of the Orange Democratic 
Movement was a clear program for reconstruction 
and transformation. Raila Odinga had been a major 
political actor on the Kenyan stage for four 
decades. He had participated in every major 
political party and formation since his father, 
Odinga Odinga had emerged as the opponent of the 
Kenyan form of neo-colonialism. The 2007 
elections exposed the reality that there were no 
real political parties in Kenya. Leaders on all 
sides were not interested in building a lasting 
movement for change. They were interested in 
parties as electoral vehicles to capture state 
power. There were more than 300 parties 
registered in Kenya and over 117 participated in 
the elections in December 2007.

Local and international writers who earlier had 
been voices for the poor enthusiastically 
supported the enactment of the first scene of the 
drama (the election and voting). Some of these 
writers moaned and groaned that the script had 
been changed when those who controlled the state 
machinery unleashed violence against the poor. In 
order to unleash state violence against the poor, 
the Minister of Internal Affairs banned the 
broadcast of live images. The state also toyed 
with the idea of banning SMS messaging in Kenya. But
Kenyans simply tuned in to the international 
media to confirm what they knew, that the 
recursive processes of killings and revenge were spiraling out of control.

Without enacting an official state of emergency 
(in the fear of further hurting the tourist 
industry) the majority of poor Kenyans lived 
under curfew-like conditions as the military, the 
police, and General Service Units were deployed 
all over the country and new forms of censorship 
were implemented. The political leadership that 
stole the elections had to be careful with the 
use of the police, military and the intelligence 
services in so far as the divisions within the 
security forces challenged the authority of those 
who stole the elections. Raila Odinga sought to 
tap into this division of the coercive forces by 
calling a demonstration of a million Kenyans to 
oppose the stolen election results.

The International media and international capital

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and 
other cultural voices of imperial power were from 
the outset one of the props of this drama. The 
British were particularly active because the 
interests of British capitalism were very much an 
important part of narrative of the drama. During 
Act 1 scenes two and three, this foreign prop had 
been condemning the “irregularities’” and 
“anomalies” of the drama and carried the press 
statements of the International Observers of the 
European Union and the Commonwealth. The head of 
the European Union observer mission issued a 
statement declaring that, “the Presidential poll 
lacks credibility and an independent audit should 
be instituted to rectify things.”

This clear statement led the US government to 
reverse its earlier recognition of Mwai Kibaki as 
the winner of the Presidential elections. There 
had been concern in Washington over the future of 
Kenya in so far as the US authorities sought to 
mobilize Kenyans in the war against terrorism. 
During the period of Kibaki, Kenyan citizens were 
shipped out of the country to be tried as 
terrorists under the US policy of kidnapping, 
called rendition. The ODM signed a memorandum of 
understanding with the Islamic community during 
the election campaign and members of the ODM 
condemned the rendering of Kenyan citizens by the 
government. It was argued that if these citizens 
acted contrary to Kenyan law, they should be tried under Kenyan law.

The propaganda war had been virulent and since 
Raila Odinga held the moral and political high 
ground, sections of the international media began 
to retreat from endorsement of the electoral 
coup. However, the occupation of the moral high 
ground was shaky. Would the government and 
opposition be more concerned with the lives of 
the poor than with political power?

In the face of the absence of resolute moral 
leadership to condemn these killings, the 
international media had a field day portraying 
the struggles for democracy in Kenya as primitive “tribal” violence.

Act Two – Stalemate and brinkmanship in politics

Raila Odinga and his team called the Pentagon had 
entered the drama seeking to play on the terms of 
those who had seized power from the time of 
colonialism. The very naming of his team as the 
‘Pentagon’ had shown an insensitivity to the 
international revulsion against military symbols. 
The five leaders of the Pentagon were, (i) Vice 
Presidential running mate M Mudavadi, (ii) 
Charity Ngilu, (iii) William Ruto, (iv) Bilal 
Najib and (v) Joseph Nyagah. These regional 
ethnic barons had emerged from multiple political 
formations and many had family and business 
linkages with capitalists inside and outside of 
the government. During the campaign these 
regional leaders had campaigned on a pledge to 
devolve power from central government. The poor 
believed this would bring power closer to the 
village and communities so that health care 
facilities, water supply systems, road and 
pathways in the villages, education, sanitation 
and other services could be delivered so that the 
conditions of exploitation are ameliorated. These 
localized services were interpreted by various 
local communities as job creation avenues for the 
jobless youths. For the regional barons, the 
devolution debate was carried out to ensure 
easier access to the treasury. The word ‘majimbo’ 
re- emerged in the political vocabulary of Kenya 
to reignite the memory of the alliance between 
the ‘home guards’ and settlers at the dawn of independence.

Youths all across Kenya had transcended the 
ethnic identification and wanted real change in 
the quality of life in the society.

Entering the drama without a real party and 
without a real organ to bring the majority of the 
actors and actresses to the center of the drama, 
it was easy for the team around Mwai Kibaki to 
stall so that the spontaneous anger would peter 
out. Would the Orange Democratic Revolution learn 
the lessons of popular power in the streets of 
the Ukraine Orange Revolution and shake the old 
power with new bases of alternative power? This 
provided the setting for the central aspect of 
the drama, the stand off between the forces of 
orange and the forces of the defeated power. 
Kibaki came across as an imprisoned leader, 
surrounded by politicians and financiers who 
argued that Kibaki must enter any negotiation 
from a position of strength. Odinga countered 
that negotiations could only begin when Kibaki 
accepted that the elections had been stolen. The 
hardening of positions ratcheted up the tensions 
in the country as regionally countries such as 
Uganda, Rwanda and the Southern Sudan began to 
feel the effects of the shutdown of the transportation system in Kenya.

Mwai Kibaki and the neo-liberal regime in Kenya

Mwai Kibaki had been associated with the ruling 
class in Kenya for over fifty years. Starting his 
career as a representative of Shell Oil Company 
in Kampala, Uganda, Kibaki moved from an academic 
position at Makerere University to the top 
echelons of the independent government of Kenya 
after independence. In the book, The Reds and the 
Blacks, William Atwood, then-US ambassador, had 
identified Kibaki as one of the steady 
‘reformers” who would guarantee the interests of 
foreign capital. Kibaki emerged as a stable force 
in the ruling circles serving both Jomo Kenyatta 
and Daniel Arap Moi as Minister of Finance. It 
was under the leadership of Kenyatta and Moi that 
the forms of theft by the ruling elements in 
Kenya were refined. Extra judicial killings and 
accidental deaths of prominent trade union 
leaders and politicians were papered over by the 
foreign press that labeled Kenya a ‘stable’ democracy.

Arap Moi and international capital.

After the death of Kenyatta in 1978, Daniel Arap 
Moi moved decisively to cement an alliance of 
foreign capitalists and local political 
careerists to loot the society and spread 
divisions and ethnic hatred among the poor and 
oppressed. British capitalism had been the 
dominant force in Kenya with British companies 
such as Unilever, Finlays, GSK, Vodafone, 
Barclays and Standard Bank becoming leading names 
on the Nairobi Stock Exchange. Britain had made a 
deal with the independence leaders and awarded a 
small sum to enhance this new class of African 
yeoman farmers to join the British settlers in 
the exploitation of Kenya and indeed, East 
Africa. Molo, in the Rift Valley (one of the 
constituencies at the center of the row over the 
rigged elections), represented one of the places 
where Kikuyu settlers had been relocated after independence.

Moi during his Presidency remained at the center 
of the alliance between British capitalists, 
Asian capitalists and Kikuyu entrepreneurs from 
Central Province. By the time of the electoral 
defeat of Moi in December 2002, the Moi family 
and cronies in the ruling party, Kenya African 
National Union (KANU) had become junior 
capitalists in the game of exploitation. It was 
under the leadership of Moi that imperialism used 
Kenya as a base to subvert African independence. 
A report commissioned by the Kibaki 
administration, (called the Kroll Report), had 
named Moi and his sons as billionaires with 
assets in banks in Britain, Switzerland, South 
Africa, Namibia, the Cayman Islands and Brunei. 
The 110-page report by the international risk 
consultancy Kroll alleged that relatives and 
associates of former President Moi siphoned off 
more than £1bn of government money. This 
documentation placed the Mois on a par with 
Africa's other great politicians-cum-looters such 
as Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire (now Democratic 
Republic of Congo) and Nigeria's Sani Abacha. The 
Kroll report of the levels of theft when 
presented to the Kibaki government was never 
acted on. The alliance between Moi and Kibaki 
forces became clearer during the election 
campaign when Moi and his sons fiercely 
campaigned for the re –election of President 
Kibaki. The sons of Moi were decisively defeated in the elections.

The documentation of the level of theft by Moi 
was exposed before the public in what to became 
known as the Goldenberg scandal. This scandal 
brought to the fore the alliance between Moi, 
KANU and Asian capitalists in Kenya. These 
capitalists had looted the country with such 
impunity that Kamlesh Mdami Pattni (an Asian 
capitalist named in the Goldenberg scandal) took 
over one party Kenda to contest the 2007 elections.

Prior to the 1992 multi-party struggles, Kibaki 
had sought to distance himself from this group of 
capitalists. These were the capitalists involved 
in settler agriculture, manufacturing, transport, 
services, old forms of banking, insurance, real 
estate, construction and engineering and the 
health and education sectors. These capitalists 
from inside and outside the political arena 
provided cover for looters all across Eastern 
Africa. In the Kenyan economy money from oil in 
the Sudan (especially Southern Sudan), commercial 
interests in Somalia, gold and diamond dealers 
from Rwanda, Burundi and the Eastern Congo 
circulated with the resources from the exploited 
Kenyan working poor so that in the past ten years 
there has been a growth of the Kenyan economy. 
Felicia Kabunga, wanted by the International 
Criminal Tribunal on Rwanda (ICRT) for crimes of 
genocide in Rwanda was the kind of looter and 
money spinner who found safe haven among the money launderers in Kenya.

Kibaki and the rise of new capitalists.


Although Mwai Kbaki had campaigned on an 
anti-corruption ticket in 2002, his tenure as 
President of Kenya was marked by an explosion of 
new schemes for accumulation. The rise of the 
telecommunications, information technology and 
banking sectors boomed with new enterprises such 
as Equity Bank and a number of communications 
companies (Safaricom, Flashcom, Telecom etc) 
rivaling the old capitalists. The floating of new 
shares n the form on an Initial Public Offer 
(IPO) for the Company, Safarcom, became a central 
question in the election campaign in so far as 
those who got access to the shares at the time of 
the issuing of the IPO became instant millionaires.

The Kibaki government was in the main dominated 
by elements who formed a company called MEGA (a 
regrouping of the old Gema Gikuyu, Embu, Meru 
Association), and through Transcentury 
Corporation had elevated themselves to be the 
among the leading capitalists in Kenya. This 
group presented a program called Vision 2030 
where Kenya would become the leading capitalist 
country in Africa, becoming the Singapore of 
Africa. Control of the governmental apparatus was crucial for Vision 2030.

Space does not allow for an elaboration of the 
individuals of this capitalist clique and their 
place in the interpenetrating directorates of the 
Nairobi Stock Exchange. What is significant is 
that the names of the capitalists and politicians 
of Trancentury figured in the scandal of 
corruption that rocked the government of Mai 
Kibaki. This was termed the Anglo-leasing scandal 
which involved awarding huge government contracts 
to bogus companies. One insider, John Githongo, 
exposed the scandal and repaired to Britain.

No money from the Anglo leasing scandal had been 
recovered before the elections and although 
European and US governments made noises about 
corruption there were no moves to repatriate the 
stolen wealth back to Kenya. These scandals were 
very much a part of the election campaign. Three 
of the four ministers who resigned after the 
Anglo Leasing scandal was exposed had been 
reinstated by Kibaki. These ministers along with 
twenty other ministers lost their parliamentary 
seats in the December 2007 elections.
The poor of Kenya had used the ballot to send a 
message to the capitalists in Kenya but those who 
stole billions of dollars from the Kenyan 
Treasury were not above stealing an election.

The real test in Kenyan politics was whether the 
team called the Pentagon was serious about 
changing the political culture of theft, looting 
and storing billions of dollars in foreign banks. 
The people of Kenya had voted for change. Was the 
Orange Democratic Movement a movement for change 
or a movement for political power? This was the 
outstanding question as the cast and the writers 
got ready for Act three of the drama of the struggle for democracy.

Act 3. A Revolutionary situation without 
revolutionary ideas and real revolutionaries.

Because the drama is being played out it is not 
possible to make a presentation of the last act 
of this drama. This is the act where the peoples 
of Kenya are torn between two traditions. These 
are the traditions of the freedom fighters for 
independence and the traditions of violence, 
looting and the low respect for African life. The 
youths of Kenya have been brought up in the 
period of the aftermath of the end of apartheid 
and the defeat of Mobutism. These youths have 
risen above the politicization of ethnicity and 
along with progressive women want to end the rape 
and violation of women. These youths have been 
heard to say that Kenya is in the midst of a liberation war.

While the consciousness of the youth may be high 
with the thought of a long term struggle, there 
are very few revolutionary leaders and a poverty 
of revolutionary ideas in Kenya. If anything, the 
poorer youths are being mobilized into 
counter-revolutionary violence where poor and 
oppressed people burn and kill each other. This 
was the lesson of the killings, burning and 
massacre in the Rift Valley. 
Counter-revolutionary violence of the Rwanda 
genocidal form lay just below the surface and the 
same politicians who gave refuge to genocidaires 
from Rwanda are not above fomenting genocidal 
violence among the poor. The media images of 
marauding youths with pangas provide the 
necessary imagery to represent to the world 
another version of African savagery. This same 
media will not prominently carry the news that 
poor peasants from the home area of Danieal Arap 
Moi burnt his house to the ground. The prospect 
of real class warfare in Kenya frightens both the 
government and the opposition so there is a 
delicate effort to manage the crisis so that the 
forms of capital accumulation can return to the 
business pages rather than the front pages.

Raila Odinga and the Orange Democratic movement 
are now caught between the aspirations of the 
regional capitalists of the ‘Pentagon’ and the 
demand for real change across Kenya. The post 
election mayhem is a clear demonstration that the 
ODM did not sufficiently engage their followers 
on new ideas transcending ethnicity and 
patriarchy. This demand for democratic change in 
Kenya will require new forms of organization 
beyond electoral politics and new ideas about the 
value of African lives. This requires a break 
with the European ideation systems that promote 
capitalism as democracy and genocide as progress.

* Horace Campbell is Professor of Political Science at Syracuse University

* Please send comments to 
<mailto:editor at pambazuka.org>editor at pambazuka.org 
or comment online at <http://www.pambazuka.org>www.pambazuka.org




Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110

415 863-9977

www.Freedomarchives.org  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20080104/c8a1fe3d/attachment.htm>