Preservation of an Independent Peace Corps -- Act to keep it so

Peace Corps Online: Peace Corps News: Special Reports: December 3, 2004: Promises not funded are promises not kept: Preservation of an Independent Peace Corps -- Act to keep it so
Promises not Funded are Promises not Kept Promises not Funded are Promises not Kept
Read the op-ed on the President's promise to double the Peace Corps by 2007, why the Peace Corps is admitting that it isn't going to happen, and what RPCVs can do to help. Latest: Read what Director Vasquez says about expansion and why promises are still unkept.


By Colin Gallagher on Thursday, January 31, 2002 - 1:03 am: Edit Post

The recent call by the Administration for a "doubling" of the U.S. Peace Corps over the next five years is a great leap forward. There is a troubling element to the State of the Union Address, however, in that Bush asks the Peace Corps to "join a new effort to encourage development, and education, and opportunity, in the Islamic world."

If this means that ultimately the Peace Corps would return to Afghanistan, for example, when the time is right, then this would be an excellent application of Bush's speech. However, if what he intends is to bring Peace Corps within the jurisdiction of the proposed Freedom Corps or a similar organization, the mission of the Peace Corps would be compromised. Part of what has enabled the Peace Corps to be as effective as it has despite its small size and budget is its independence from other government agencies. It is largely unique in that respect.

We, the collective body of RPCVs, should send a clear message to our Representatives and Senators with our thoughts on the issue of the independence of Peace Corps -- and we should do so before a decision is made on the issue by politicians.
Local petitions may be more effective than individual messages in this regard, and outreach to families and friends (regardless of party affiliation) on the issue is crucial in effectively spreading the message. Let's keep the ball rolling!

By Karey Sabol on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 5:09 pm: Edit Post

Right on! The President's "new effort" sounded to me like a wholly uneducated proposal. As an RPCV from Jordan (98-00), I can attest to the fact that The Peace Corps has already been working in the Islamic world for many years.

By Jason Cochran on Monday, February 04, 2002 - 11:23 am: Edit Post

While the main message of doubling the number of Volunteers and putting them in Islamic countries is great, we need to question the motives. Moreover, we as RPCV's, especially those of the cold war generation, need to be active to prevent the idealistic volunteers from becoming unknowing agents for the CIA and U.S. Government to keep tabs on "potential troublemakers" like what happened during the cold war. Paranoia led to destructive and hypotcritical forign policy during the cold war, and many volunteers were unknowing pawns. We need to take care so that the same does not happen during this so-called war as well.

By Mark Karaczun (karaczun) on Wednesday, February 13, 2002 - 12:26 pm: Edit Post

As former volunteer for both Peace Corps (Thailand '91-'94) and Americorps (Boston Univ. Health & Housing Fellow '94-'96) I welcome greater national recognition and support for both programs. However, it needs to be recognised that there are considerable and justifiable differences between Peace Corps and Americorps. I therefore question the need to merge them under a single umbrella. The details of each program are frequently subject to mild misunderstanding even among their advocates and so merging of missions will only serve to add confusion with no tangible benefits. Keep them separate and independent.

Furthermore, Peace Corps has been working in Islamic communities the world over. (I was in a predominantly Muslim area of southernmost Thailand where I was warmly welcomed.) Yet, fundamental to the mission of Peace Corps is that the host country "requests" volunteers. Offer more PCVs to nations that want them? Yes! Impose them or force feed them to nations that are not sure they want them? Absolutely not!

By Alice Arnold on Wednesday, February 13, 2002 - 1:03 pm: Edit Post

As a former volunteer for both Peace Corps (Uzbekistan 2001) and the VISTA*Americorps program I COMPLETELY agree with a previous message. I was also a work-study who chose to work in a non-profit organization, but that's a whole other bunch of issues and concerns with this order. While reading Bush's statement I was wondering just how familiar that speech writer was with Peace Corps missions and policies. I'm sure if Bush were aware of the 3 goals he would be trying to do away with Peace Corps rather than strengthen it. The necessity for invitation on behalf of the host country is a major concern. Its one of the few safeguards against Peace Corps becoming a latently imperialistic agency. Just the language of this document made me think that this administration would like to see PC go this route. Sure we need more volunteers both domestically and abroad but do they need to be federally sanctioned? Didn't the Reagans tout volunteerism as a means to revitalize America? Perhaps more important goals for the Bush administration should be improve its understanding of "Islamic states" and the US's subsequent role and its governing paradigm in the emerging geopolitical climate. All the more reason why Peace Corps' needs to remain an agency separate from State or any other department. Peace Corps' mission is too well established to be a pawn for this or any other administration. Changes can be made but the principle behind those changes need to be of the appropriate interests.

By Mary Terchek on Wednesday, February 13, 2002 - 1:59 pm: Edit Post

I agree that the Peace Corps should remain small, go where a host country wants what the Peace Corps can offer, and be independent of other government agencies. I believe the United States gets more from the Peace Corps experience than it gives: We have brought back a cultural sensitivity that enriches the country and helps the country adapt to its own demographic changes. As individuals we have become much more sensitive to other cultures and learned skills for dealing with differences. We have also learned enormously about creating a just world for everyone. Volunteers in my group always struggled over how much of what we were doing involved a cultural imperialism. That dilemma has surely increased with globalization. We are in a very dangerous time for the Peace Corps and should proceed very carefully and with open deliberation.

By Jason Rivers on Wednesday, February 13, 2002 - 4:17 pm: Edit Post

Colin Gallagher hits the nail on the head. Peace Corps needs to remain an entity unto itself. I think by joining forces with the so-called "freedom corps" looks good on paper, but when it comes down to its Volunteer presence, it will be a mis-allocated mockery of true volunteer services. Working in higher education administration, I am a huge advocate for Peace Corps on campus. However, since the State of the Union address, I have had several people inquire about Freedom Corps and Americorps alike. When I mention Peace Corps, the first thing replied is "wow thats a two year committment, I dont want to do that!" and this is what we need to avoid. Obviously, being a volunteer is being just that, and it should not be something that is done to say "wow look what I did" and thats the sense that Dubya put on the table with Freedom Corps, just do your time and get out. I think every Peace Corps Volunteer that I have met so far has not been in it for this reason, but rather to serve as a Volunteer. Often they go on to do other great things, its not something that you do and then say "wow look what I did, I gave my time". I think that is the biggest reason that Peace Corps should ramain seperate from other government operations.

By Colleen Clark on Thursday, February 14, 2002 - 10:35 am: Edit Post

I agree that the Peace Corps should stay independent and that the requests from host governments are fundamental to PCV's being welcomed and useful.
Furthermore, while the idea of increasing the number of Volunteers is appealing it has to grow out of host countries' requests for Volunteers rather than being a result of a 'push' from the US government. I was a teacher in Turkey (64-66). There was a time when the Peace Corps in Turkey expanded too quickly beyond the capacity of the Peace Corps to manage all the Volunteers and of Turkey to absorb them well.

By Thomas J. Kauwling on Monday, February 18, 2002 - 1:59 pm: Edit Post

Tom Kauwling, PCV in Northeast Thailand, 1965-1967. Essentially I agree with what the others, whose comments are printed on the version I got, said: Peace Corps should remain independent of other govt agencies/departments and should only go where they are requested to go, to do what the volunteers are reuested to do. Although I have not kept in close contact with PC activities over the past 35+ years, I know that I am appalled by Bush's recent nomination for director - who now is the Director. What a sham(e)!

It seems to me also, that after the breakup of the USSR, a great number of volunteers were sent 'over there' to teach the ways and beauties of American capitalism ... I guess Enron should illustrate the values of American capitalism.

Way back when, PCVs did simple tasks and were not there to push any particular political or economic system on the host country natives. Has that all changed? And for better or for worse, and for whom?

By steve berman on Monday, February 18, 2002 - 9:33 pm: Edit Post

Steve Berman, Swaziland 75-77. It is essential that PeaceCorps volunteers be 1)invited and 2) independent. To dilute either of these historic attributes is to light the fuse on a powder keg! The current climate in the Islamic world will cause PCVs to be targeted by radical elements. Any connection to other government agendas almost gaurantees tragedy. Although extremely popular in my African community, I was almost killed at the end of 2 1/2 years service (we were asked to extend to prepare our students for O-levels) for being an "American Imperialist". How much worse would it be in todays Afghanistan or Pakistan?

By joan claire kleihauer on Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 11:59 am: Edit Post

I was a volunteer in Uganda 1969-71. I set up an art department in a college. I had no political agenda and I was there because along with english teachers, health workers, the Ugandan goverment also asked for an artist.
Reading the petition angered me. I feel like the peace corps is one organization which is respected and well liked by the countries we serve in because we have no political agenda. I say do not mess with a system that works. It is the mutual two year commitment of the volounteer and the host country to fill a need for that country (not ours) until the country can fufill this need itself. Making us more political will not only gain us enemies, but it will send untrained individuals into the political arena which is scarey.

By Christopher E. McKee on Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 9:28 pm: Edit Post

The Peace Corps relies on a good reputation for its continued effectiveness as an organization of good will. I don't see how unifying it to the other Freedom Corps will help it accomplish its mission. I urge our government to avoid generating more bureaucracy and excessive compromises. The Peace corps is a good thing for everybody as it is. If you think it will help, know that you are acting under scrutiny; I hope you are right.

By Stephanie Tolk on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 3:25 pm: Edit Post

After returning from Mali (98-00,) I took a job as a campus recruiter at my current university. When I introduce PC to undergrads during class talks, I often get questions about how PCVs are requested and how volunteers choose projects. I've always been proud to explain that countries request volunteers, and that we often design our own projects. Essentially, PCVs have never had to represent imperialist America or impose US values on other countries. Now I'm not so sure this is the case! PCVs should not be used to further economic and political goals of the US government. That's not what we signed up for.

By John Lincoln Donohue on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 7:29 pm: Edit Post

As a former Peace Corps Volunteer in the early 70's, Belize 71-73,I recall discussions about merging the Peace Corps with ACTION.It was not a good idea then and it is not a good idea to merge with the Freedom Corps now.

By Jim Fox on Friday, March 01, 2002 - 12:15 am: Edit Post

Former PCV and Staff (E. Pakistan and Iran - 1964-69), 4-years, entirely in Islamic countries. I fostered understanding, now all but destroyed by The Bush Kid's fundamentalist "New Christian Crusade."

PC MUST remain independent from intelligence gathering, covert operations, propaganda and political activities. I trust nothing this gang does; resist or see decades of effort co-opted for their hypocritical political, corporate agenda.

Iran was ready to open up relations, a process set-back 10-years by the stupid, pandering "eeevil axis" statement. Or, was it hard-ball power politics (Give us the oil or we'll destroy you too.)?

As for sending PCV's to Afghanistan, that is nauseatingly absurd hypocritical political nonsense. Assuming the true objective was oil, it will require occupational military forces to remain there. Afghanistan will soon kick "US" out and suffer tribal anarchy for years, only slightly better off than under Taliban. Nieve PCV's would be at extreme risk. PCV's must never be sacrificed for political propaganda or commercial purposes.

PC was pulled from Bangladeish, a relatively independent, stable, progressing Islamic country; if requested, let them return there. PC MUST remain independent, free to make these decisions itself.

By Jim Schneider on Monday, March 04, 2002 - 6:15 pm: Edit Post

I am the current President of Friends of Niger, having been a PCV in Niger from 1964 to 1967. It's less than five weeks since my return from a recent visit to Niger, where Peace Corps will this year celebrate 40 unbroken years of service. I was once again overwhelmed by the depth of trust and good will that continues to exist toward Peace Corps and toward PCVs - old and new. It is to me something of a miracle that PC has managed to retain such a singular and constructive relationship with people in so many parts of the world, in spite of the slow but steady deterioration of affection and respect for the US in many of the same corners of this globe. I have no doubt that the incorporation of Peace Corps into the Freedom Corps is a purposeful and thinly disguised end run on Peace Corps' quasi-independent status at home and that such action will do immeasurable and likely irreparable damage to its relationships abroad.

By Chris Murphy on Wednesday, March 06, 2002 - 2:23 pm: Edit Post

Hey George! Get your paws off of Peace-Corps! I've just read the above rightious comments from fellow RPCV's and am hereby adding my two cents. I say to hooie with Heir Dubya's dubious (and stupidious) plan to force P.C. into the villages and cities of countries who'd rather not participate. Bush's plan is a sham, a freindly-faced imperialism destined to eat out the very heart of P.C.'s independance and aim - to engage in cultural and skills EXCHANGE. Keep P.C. independent! And keep the world community independent of our President Select's madness.
Chris Murphy, Nepal '95-'97.

By Kevin Young on Wednesday, March 06, 2002 - 10:15 pm: Edit Post

Peacecorps mission is not a pollitical one, there for it should remain as free as possible from political agendas. This way we dont rub feathers the wrong way and put our own people abroad at risk. If the president wishies to force Peacecorp into falling in line with his agenda I say we resist at all coasts, peacefully of course. We should launch a public media campgien dedicated to allerting the public of his totalitarin plan, take a vote among peace corp members wether or not it should go with dubbua's plans, allow the voice of the people it effects be heard. Peacecorps have been around 3 times as long as my life, I don't want to see this be the begining of the end by allowing corruption to wave its influnce throughout the organization. Kevin Young

By Heather Bloor on Sunday, March 10, 2002 - 10:27 pm: Edit Post

Many people have made the point that PCVs need to be requested by host country communities. How do you think that happens? I don't suppose some science teacher in Afganistan thinks to himself, I'd love an American Anthropology major to come here and teach girls science and some self-esteem skills. In reality, the leaders of Peace Corps (government employees, really) go to the host country's government and explain Peace Corps, asking if they would be interested to host some of these basically underqualified college grads who dont' speak the native language to work in their country. Obviouslly, there have been many who have agreed. Let's take Russia as an example (my country of service). After the two governments made an agreement, the Peace Corps went to various Russian cities and asked if schools and universites wanted volunteers. Sites here nothing more than, "free teacher" and "native English speaker". Why, in heavens name, would they say no to that. They can't pay their own teachers, so it only makes sense they will take some freebies. In turn, they supply housing that is inadequate by Russian standards and push volunteers to get grands for nonsustanable projects. Notice that the sites did not seek out Peace Corps but Peace Corps sought them out. And then convinced them that it was in their best interest. Peace Corps is a beautiful idea that could provide a beatiful thing that would be good for both countries. More often than not however, it is simply Americans thinking that we have all the answers, pushing our ideas on others. The fact that 40 years after it's founding very few peace Corps countries have prospered is a sure sign that it is not working. Again, it is a beatiful idea, but everything could use imrovement. even our beloved Peace Corps. It does not seem as though anyone knows what the Freedom Corps role will be. It seems like we all need more facts before making judgements.

By julia mehrer on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 8:14 am: Edit Post

I think most of us are in agreement that there is NO WAY Peace Corps should be sidetracked from its current place and put under another agency.

There is a reason why P.C. was independent from the beginning. We need to be to have the trust of the host countries.

Heather, although there is always room for improvement, you seem to be forgetting the second and third goals of the P.C., which are always fulfilled when a Volunteer stays for 2 years. Just look at the knowledge of foreign countries represented by the comments before yours! And all of us who have lived overseas for over 18 months know the reactions of local people when meeting US, rather than the "officials" of our country.

Let's not let the current administration use the P.C. as a tool to further the interests of a particular political party. Keep it independent as it was intended to be.

PS I speak from 38 years of involvement with Latin America, both with PC (PCV-Ecuador 1964) and other agencies and as a former PC staff wife, and as mother of a PCV in Hungary.

By Michael P. McLaughlin -- Ghana, 1966-68 on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 8:32 am: Edit Post

The Peace Corps is arguably one of the best programs that the U.S. Government has ever created. It is not broken and, therefore, does not need to be fixed or altered.

Also, as RPCVs know quite well, the Peace Corps works best at the personal level. Its success is a function of individual performance by individual volunteers. Making it bigger is a favorite bureaucratic tactic but bigger doesn't mean better. Quality beats quantity every time.

In short, Mr. Bush, the Peace Corps is doing well. Leave it alone.

By mike osborn (majoroz) on Wednesday, March 20, 2002 - 4:57 pm: Edit Post

As I do not watch all that much TV, I must have missed the part where it was reported that Peace Corps was to become part of the Freedom Corps.
Could someone lead me to a reference?

thanx

oz

By Jules on Tuesday, April 02, 2002 - 11:37 pm: Edit Post

The Peace Corps is a complicated agency that has had its share of controversy over the years. But I would hesitate to say that Peace Corps is not working because countries that invited Peace Corps 40 years ago are not prospering. Yes, Peace Corps isn't perfect, but I still think the motives are good ones. My stint in Hungary ('91-'93) did much more for me than I would guess it did for the friends and colleagues I developed relationships with there, but these links were founded on mutual work, and mutual respect.

What are the goals of Freedom Corps? It is not altogether clear to me.

I haven't seen the news piece that described the merger of the Peace Corps with the Freedom Corps, but I have seen the Freedom Corps website, and it's a collage of "corps" groups, of which Peace Corps is one. That is a little unnerving, but what's unnerving is it inclusion alongside the newly created Citizens Corps, the third of the three main groups of the Freedom Corps.

The Citizens Corp, according to its description, will focus on Homeland Security (with the admirable Medical Reserve and Emergency Response, and the questionable Police Service, Neighborhood Watch, and Terrorist Information and Prevention System). Associating Peace Corps with these goals puts it in a risky group, and requires open discussion. This doesn't seem likely, however. It seems that the Freedom Corps is a "done deal" through Executive Order.

Is Peace Corps now outside public/congressional debate? And what does one do about it if it is?

I haven't been an active member of my local Peace Corps group (Hill Country RPCV's in Texas), but I feel the first step is to talk with other RPCV's in my area through this group, get it on an agenda, discuss it, then get it studied and decided in Congress. Is Peace Corps independent at this point? And if not, can it be returned?

By Jules on Tuesday, April 02, 2002 - 11:39 pm: Edit Post

The Peace Corps is a complicated agency that has had its share of controversy over the years. But I would hesitate to say that Peace Corps is not working because countries that invited Peace Corps 40 years ago are not prospering. Yes, Peace Corps isn't perfect, but I still think the motives are good ones. My stint in Hungary ('91-'93) did much more for me than I would guess it did for the friends and colleagues I developed relationships with there, but these links were founded on mutual work, and mutual respect.

What are the goals of Freedom Corps? It is not altogether clear to me.

I haven't seen the news piece that described the merger of the Peace Corps with the Freedom Corps, but I have seen the Freedom Corps website, and it's a collage of "corps" groups, of which Peace Corps is one. That is a little unnerving, but what's unnerving is it inclusion alongside the newly created Citizens Corps, the third of the three main groups of the Freedom Corps.

The Citizens Corp, according to its description, will focus on Homeland Security (with the admirable Medical Reserve and Emergency Response, and the questionable Police Service, Neighborhood Watch, and Terrorist Information and Prevention System). Associating Peace Corps with these goals puts it in a risky group, and requires open discussion. This doesn't seem likely, however. It seems that the Freedom Corps is a "done deal" through Executive Order.

Is Peace Corps now outside public/congressional debate? And what does one do about it if it is?

I haven't been an active member of my local Peace Corps group (Hill Country RPCV's in Texas), but I feel the first step is to talk with other RPCV's in my area through this group, get it on an agenda, discuss it, then get it studied and decided in Congress. Is Peace Corps independent at this point? And if not, can it be returned?

By Preb Stritter on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 10:43 am: Edit Post

In today's discussion of the automony of PCVs I do not see any reference to a similar issue in 1981 when Pres Regan took office. I was a PCV in Nepal and the story we heard was that the new President had mandated that any employee of the USA anywhere in the world could be accessed by the Pres and assigned to do anything asked of him/her. This caused a flap similar to the one going on now - safety issue,etc. Old-timers in Washington objected and the mandate was amended to include "EXCEPT for Peace Corps Volunteers and other personnel".
There must be some record of this action - or press reports, etc.- available somewhere.
Preb Stritter,RPCV Nepal, N95

By Colin Gallagher on Monday, May 06, 2002 - 5:29 am: Edit Post

I would like to address Jules' as well as Preb Stritter's above questions in turn.

As to Jules' question as to whether or not Peace Corps is independent at this point, the answer is that it is technically independent in terms of agency organization, but this independence is in name only, on paper. In order to best understand the legal basis for this claim, link to the following page and scroll down past Peace Corps' opinion to read my analysis and refutation of Peace Corps' Director of Communications' opinion, at:

http://PeaceCorpsOnline.org/messages/messages/2629/1007706.html?1019151041

Preb Stritter's question seems to deal with President Reagan's amendments to Executive Order 12137. These amendments occurred in February of 1981 and December of 1982, and their impact to Peace Corps was rendered substantially irrelevant with the extinction of the umbrella agency, ACTION. Reservation of functions of the President with respect to Peace Corps, however, did not change. More importantly, perhaps, was that Executive Order 12333 (Intelligence Activities, Dec. 4, 1981) also did not change. Section 1.6(a) of that Executive Order reads as follows:

1.6 Duties and Responsibilities of the Heads of Executive Branch Departments and Agencies.
(a) The heads of all Executive Branch departments and agencies shall, in accordance with law and relevant procedures approved by the Attorney General under this Order, give the Director of Central Intelligence access to all information relevant to the national intelligence needs of the United States, and shall give due consideration to the requests from the Director of Central Intelligence for appropriate support for Intelligence Community activities.

(The above section of E.O. 12333 can be found online through GPO Access or NARA -- or, if you're in the mood, you can view it on a CIA web link, where it is proudly displayed.)

A combination of original expressions of Presidential intent (by Kennedy), good-faith agreements, and Peace Corps policies which prohibit recruitment of known intelligence agency employees into Peace Corps, together comprise a ramshackle barrier of sorts against the CIA, NSA, et-cetera. However, it is quite easy to see that given the intent of current legislation, and the history of intelligence agency activities, there is now very little, if any, legal or enforcement capacity to limit any occurrences of unethical incursions by the cowboys of the "Company" into our peaceful midst. The future of Peace Corps currently depends on the will of good men and women to populate its ranks with an intent to achieve Peace Corps' mission: To promote peace and friendship.

People with good will -- the Volunteers -- have been Peace Corps' saving grace in its more difficult times. However, given the politics of the times, to preserve what Kennedy was trying to do, Peace Corps will also need advocates willing to fight for legislative action.

( See: http://PeaceCorpsOnline.org/messages/messages/2629/1007706.html?1019151041 )

By akinsete olalekan (81.199.85.87) on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 3:07 pm: Edit Post

dear sir/ma,
i'm a graduate from nigeria,i want to work with any volunteer organization any where in the world,pls how can i go about it.looking foward to hearing from u.lekan

By Anonymous (205.127.246.94) on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 1:40 pm: Edit Post

Everything five years or what?

By joaninocera (adsl-131.185.64.info.com.ph - 203.131.185.64) on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 5:36 am: Edit Post

I am currently a peace corps volunteer serving philippines 2003-2005. I don't have anyone to talk to on a regular basis and gets lonely at times. I would love if someone could respond to my message or email. Thanks, joani 262, phil.

By op (tproxy4.anet.net.th - 203.148.252.236) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 11:47 am: Edit Post

I am looking for 2 friends. Tom Owens and John McKency, surname may be spell not correct.

They used to worked in Chiang Mai Thailand for over 25 years

Please it would be nice to have a chance to contact old firend again if 2 of you able to reach this message, please email me at
wtaechawong@hotmail.com

By BISHOP CLAUDIA HUMPHREY (206.117.60.134) on Friday, August 18, 2006 - 6:59 pm: Edit Post

YOU ARE HELPING ME BY READING ABOUT MY WORK
AND THE FULFILLMENT OF MY INDEPENDENCE.
THE MINISTRY OF GOD REACHING OTHERS AS CHRIST
TAUGHT.
SO SEND I YOU... IS IN FACT UNREWARDED BUT
VERY FULFILLING IN CONTACTS.
I HOLD NO VOWS OF POVERTY BECAUSE PEOPLE EVERYWHERE AROUND ME ARE RELIANT ON THE HOPE THAT THIS MINISTER WILL HAVE SOMETHING TO GIVE THEM.
I HAVE A VOW OF CHASTITY BECAUSE I BELIEVE ANY CHRISTIAN WHO IS NOT MORAL OWES OTHERS AS WELL AS CHRIST AN APOLOGY.

CAN YOU READ THIS AND CYPHER I NEED HELP, EVEN
THOUGH PEOPLE USE MY E MAIL TO WRITE ME
THE FOLLOW THROUGH DOES NOT MAKE STREET CONTACTS AFTER MY EMAIL ADDRESS 'bishop_here@Yahoo.com"
(MOSTLY USED ON INTERNET IN GLENDALE, CA) NOR
DO THEY CONTACT ME AT 601 ISABEL IN GLENDALE
OR 123 W.WINDSOR IN GLENDALE OR THE VERDUGO JOBS CENTER IN GLENDALE INSTEAD THEY TRY TO REACH
ME ON CALL AT DADS 1-323-936-4596. DAD IS SICKLY
AND KNOWS I AM A HOMELESS MISSIONARY WITH CONTACTS OF SCORES OF PEOPLE EVERY DAY AND ON THE WEEKEND CAN BE HUNDREDS DEPENDING ON THE CONGREGATIONAL CONTACT.
PLEASE FIND ME AND HELP ME
1-818-242-1350
OR
1-818-956-9671
OR 1-323-935-4596

MY HEALING CONCERTS CAN BE DYNAMIC, DON'T WAIT TOO LONG!
SINCERELY,
CLAUDIA HUMPHREY SINGING EVANGELIST


Add a Message


This is a public posting area. Enter your username and password if you have an account. Otherwise, enter your full name as your username and leave the password blank. Your e-mail address is optional.
Username:  
Password:
E-mail: