32
   

Rising fascism in the US

 
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 12 Apr, 2019 09:25 pm
@coluber2001,
coluber2001 wrote:
We've got a taste of fascism, and some people seem to like it, and that's the scary thing.
As Olivier5 says, "It's a fight between democracy and fascism."

That's silly. Trump is hardly a fascist.


coluber2001 wrote:
Trump's main antagonists are not the Democrats, it's the press and the Constitution itself, the two things that authoritarians rid themselves of as soon as possible.

The Constitution sides with Trump.

The media's campaign of lies about Trump show that they really are America's enemy.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 12 Apr, 2019 09:27 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
Daniel Ellsberg says the US-led arrest of Julian Assange signals the end of investigative journalism... and the Republic.

The US didn't lead the arrest.

Traitors always object to the notion of traitors being brought to justice.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 12 Apr, 2019 09:30 pm
@Lash,
ABC News wrote:
At the prison, where he is being held while the extradition process plays out, "there are medical facilities there, access to dental care I would assume, and a garden to go out into," Hrafnsson said.
"But comparing one prison to another and giving a star rating is not really what's on my mind," he said. "What's on my mind is there's an innocent man in prison for doing his job as a journalist, and that's an outrage."

Is "exposing the identity of underground democracy advocates in dictatorships around the world" the job of a journalist?


ABC News wrote:
The political debate over whether to extradite Assange is already taking shape, with Britain's opposition Labour Party urging the government not to hand him over to the Americans. Party leader Jeremy Corbyn tweeted that the U.S. is prosecuting Assange because he exposed "evidence of atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Assange did not expose evidence of atrocities anywhere.


ABC News wrote:
Diane Abbott, Labour's spokeswoman for domestic affairs, told Parliament: "It is this whistle-blowing into illegal wars, mass murder, murder of civilians and corruption on a grand scale that has put Julian Assange in the cross hairs of the U.S. administration."

Assange did not expose any illegal wars.

Assange did not expose any mass murder.

Assange did not expose any murder of civilians.

Assange did not expose any corruption by any US official.

Assange did expose, however, the identity of underground democracy advocates in dictatorships around the world.


ABC News wrote:
If found guilty of the U.S. charges, Assange could get five years in prison.

It is possible that there are even more charges awaiting him if he falls into US custody.

I wonder how long he'll get for those two rapes that he committed in Sweden.


ABC News wrote:
If Assange loses in extradition court, he could appeal several times and ultimately try to have his case heard at the European Court of Human Rights — unless Britain has left the European Union by that time.

Oooh. Bad reporting there.

It's pretty unlikely that the UK plans to exit the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.

They could probably do it if they wanted to. But I'll be very surprised if they want to.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 12 Apr, 2019 09:32 pm
@Lash,
Daniel Ellsberg wrote:
Now, just a couple of years ago one of–a key person in that process, Gar Alperovitz, did, after consulting his lawyers, decide to let me use his name. And that–there was a New Yorker story about that recently. But others, still cautious. And what it appears now is I think they were right to be cautious about that. I would have thought with all his time having elapsed that could be–and with it having been clear that the publication they’d aided in had served the American interest in helping end the Vietnam War and exposing a lot of lying, I would have thought that they would be not only proud of that, which I think they are, but are willing to take credit for that. Nope. That’s a credit they didn’t want, because it may come at the cost of an indictment. And I hope Gar is not caught up in that at this point.

Gar Alperovitz has long been discredited for his outrageous lies about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

He is a known liar.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 13 Apr, 2019 01:31 am
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-martyrdom-of-julian-assange/
The Martyrdom of Julian Assange
Excerpt:

The arrest Thursday of Julian Assange eviscerates all pretense of the rule of law and the rights of a free press. The illegalities, embraced by the Ecuadorian, British and U.S. governments, in the seizure of Assange are ominous. They presage a world where the internal workings, abuses, corruption, lies and crimes, especially war crimes, carried out by corporate states and the global ruling elite will be masked from the public. They presage a world where those with the courage and integrity to expose the misuse of power will be hunted down, tortured, subjected to sham trials and given lifetime prison terms in solitary confinement. They presage an Orwellian dystopia where news is replaced with propaganda, trivia and entertainment. The arrest of Assange, I fear, marks the official beginning of the corporate totalitarianism that will define our lives.

Under what law did Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno capriciously terminate Julian Assange’s rights of asylum as a political refugee? Under what law did Moreno authorize British police to enter the Ecuadorian Embassy—diplomatically sanctioned sovereign territory—to arrest a naturalized citizen of Ecuador? Under what law did Prime Minister Theresa May order the British police to grab Assange, who has never committed a crime? Under what law did President Donald Trump demand the extradition of Assange, who is not a U.S. citizen and whose news organization is not based in the United States?

I am sure government attorneys are skillfully doing what has become de rigueur for the corporate state, using specious legal arguments to eviscerate enshrined rights by judicial fiat. This is how we have the right to privacy with no privacy. This is how we have “free” elections funded by corporate money, covered by a compliant corporate media and under iron corporate control. This is how we have a legislative process in which corporate lobbyists write the legislation and corporate-indentured politicians vote it into law. This is how we have the right to due process with no due process. This is how we have a government—whose fundamental responsibility is to protect citizens—that orders and carries out the assassination of its own citizens such as the radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son. This is how we have a press legally permitted to publish classified information and a publisher sitting in jail in Britain awaiting extradition to the United States and a whistleblower, Chelsea Manning, in a jail cell in the United States.

Britain will use as its legal cover for the arrest the extradition request from Washington based on conspiracy charges. This legal argument, in a functioning judiciary, would be thrown out of court. Unfortunately, we no longer have a functioning judiciary. We will soon know if Britain as well lacks one.
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 13 Apr, 2019 01:44 am
https://truthout.org/articles/assanges-indictment-treats-journalism-as-a-crime/

The Trump Administration Indicts Assange

Assange’s arrest comes thanks to the Trump administration’s decision to pursue WikiLeaks. The Obama administration refrained from indicting Assange for fear of establishing “a precedent that could chill investigative reporting about national security matters by treating it as a crime,” according to Charlie Savage of The New York Times. Obama’s government had difficulty distinguishing between what WikiLeaks did and what traditional news media organizations like the Times “do in soliciting and publishing information they obtain that the government wants to keep secret,” Savage wrote. News organizations, including the Times, published articles that drew on documents WikiLeaks had published in 2010, including “logs of significant combat events in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

But the Trump administration decided to come after Assange. In 2017, then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo said, “WikiLeaks walks like a hostile intelligence service and talks like a hostile intelligence service.”

An indictment filed on March 6, 2018, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia charges Assange under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. It alleges he was part of a conspiracy to access a computer without authorization in order to obtain classified information that “could be used to the injury of the United States.” Assange faces five years in prison if convicted.

Assange’s April 11 arrest was based on two grounds: failure to appear on a British warrant in 2012, and a warrant of extradition to face indictment in the United States. After his arrest, Assange was taken before a British judge and pleaded not guilty to failing to surrender to the court in 2012. District Judge Michael Snow convicted Assange, who now faces 12 months in prison in the U.K. for that offense. This is unrelated to the charges Assange would face in the United States.The indictment says Manning provided WikiLeaks with 90,000 “war-related significant activity reports” about Afghanistan, 400,000 about Iraq, 800 Guantánamo detainee “assessment briefs” and 250,000 U.S. State Department cables. WikiLeaks published the vast majority in 2010 and 2011. The indictment alleges Assange helped Manning attempt to crack a password to make it harder to identify Manning as the source of the classified information.

U.K. Should Deny Extradition of Assange to the U.S.

Meanwhile, Assange vows to fight extradition to the United States. Under the 2003 extradition treaty between the U.S. and the U.K., the U.K. can deny extradition if the offense sought is punishable by death. The U.S. Justice Department is apparently planning to file new charges against Assange, in addition to those listed in the 2018 indictment. But under the 2003 treaty, the United States cannot charge Assange with violation of the Espionage Act, because it carries the death penalty.

Moreover, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment forbids extradition to a country where there are substantial grounds to believe the person would be in danger of being tortured.

The danger of torture in the U.S. is real. During the first 11 months of Manning’s incarceration in 2010, she was held in solitary confinement and subjected to humiliating forced nudity during daily inspection. The former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture called Manning’s treatment cruel, inhuman and degrading, possibly rising to the level of torture.

There is thus good reason to believe Assange might be subjected to such illegal treatment if he were extradited to the United States.

A few days before Assange’s removal from the embassy and arrest, Nils Metzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, warned that extradition to the U.S. “could expose him to a real risk of serious violations of his human rights, including his freedom of expression, his right to a fair trial and the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Assange’s Indictment Will Chill Freedom of the Press

Assange’s prosecution is unprecedented.

“The Justice Department has never charged journalists with violating the law for doing their jobs,” Savage wrote.

“Reporting on leaked materials, including reporting on classified information, is an essential role of American journalism,” the Electronic Frontier Foundation said in a statement.

The ACLU’s Ben Wizner cautioned that prosecuting Assange “would set an especially dangerous precedent for U.S. journalists, who routinely violate foreign secrecy laws to deliver information vital to the public’s interest.” He added that “while there is no First Amendment right to crack a government password, this indictment characterizes as ‘part of’ a criminal conspiracy the routine and protected activities journalists often engage in as part of their daily jobs, such as encouraging a source to provide more information.”

Kristinn Hrafnsson, editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, responded to Assange’s indictment, saying, “This is journalism. It’s called ‘conspiracy.’ It’s conspiracy to commit journalism.”

Reporters Without Borders, an organization that protects freedom of the press, called on the U.K. to oppose extradition of Assange. It would “set a dangerous precedent for journalists, whistleblowers, and other journalistic sources that the U.S. may wish to pursue in the future.”

The 2003 treaty between the U.S. and the U.K. prohibits extradition if the request is “politically motivated.” That limitation is certainly at play here: Trump administration has made a political decision to single out WikiLeaks and make it an example. The administration wishes to send a message to other press organizations that they publish material critical of U.S. policy at their peril.

The U.K. must deny the extradition of Assange to the United States.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 13 Apr, 2019 06:09 am
@Lash,
Quote:
The arrest Thursday of Julian Assange eviscerates all pretense of the rule of law and the rights of a free press.

So.... enforcing the law eviscerates all pretense of rule of law?


Lash wrote:
The illegalities, embraced by the Ecuadorian, British and U.S. governments, in the seizure of Assange are ominous.

It is illegal for the police to arrest criminals?


Lash wrote:
They presage a world where the internal workings, abuses, corruption, lies and crimes, especially war crimes, carried out by corporate states and the global ruling elite will be masked from the public.

No such abuses, corruption, crimes, or war crimes. At least, none by any Americans.

It is proper that internal workings remain hidden.


Lash wrote:
They presage a world where those with the courage and integrity to expose the misuse of power will be hunted down, tortured, subjected to sham trials and given lifetime prison terms in solitary confinement.

Assange did not expose any misuse of power by any US official.

If he exposed corruption by non-US officials, that is laudable, but that does not outweigh his deliberate exposure of underground democracy activists in the world's dictatorships.


Lash wrote:
The arrest of Assange, I fear, marks the official beginning of the corporate totalitarianism that will define our lives.

The left can be really goofy sometimes.


Lash wrote:
Under what law did Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno capriciously terminate Julian Assange's rights of asylum as a political refugee? Under what law did Moreno authorize British police to enter the Ecuadorian Embassy--diplomatically sanctioned sovereign territory--to arrest a naturalized citizen of Ecuador?

How about the general principle of national sovereignty?


Lash wrote:
Under what law did Prime Minister Theresa May order the British police to grab Assange, who has never committed a crime?

Assange has committed quite a few crimes.

I'm not an expert in British law, but I think the law in question would be whatever statute allows courts to have people arrested when they fail to show up for their court appointments.


Lash wrote:
Under what law did President Donald Trump demand the extradition of Assange, who is not a U.S. citizen and whose news organization is not based in the United States?

Something about hacking I believe.


Lash wrote:
a whistleblower, Chelsea Manning,

Hardly a whistleblower, unless you count exposing underground democracy activists to dictators.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Sat 13 Apr, 2019 06:10 am
Civil liberties groups condemn the Trump admin’s indictment of Julian Assange
camillefassett
Camille Fassett
Reporter
April 11, 2019
Today, WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange was arrested by British authorities after Ecuador terminated his asylum status. He has been charged for alleged conspiracy with whistleblower Chelsea Manning under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and faces potential extradition to the United States — a country with an extensive history of targeting whistleblowers with punitive sentences in prison. The details of the charge are fraught with press freedom implications and could potentially criminalize many common interactions journalists have with sources.

Here’s what numerous civil liberties and digital rights groups had to say about the implications of Assange’s charge and arrest.

Trevor Timm, Freedom of the Press Foundation:

For years, the Obama administration considered indicting WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange, before rightly concluding it could not do so without encroaching on core press freedoms. Now almost nine years in, the Trump administration has used the same information to manufacture a flimsy and pretextual indictment involving a “conspiracy” to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act—based entirely on alleged conversations between a journalist and source. While the Trump administration has so far not attempted to explicitly declare the act of publishing illegal, a core part of its argument would criminalize many common journalist-source interactions that reporters rely on all the time. Requesting more documents from a source, using an encrypted chat messenger, or trying to keep a source’s identity anonymous are not crimes; they are vital to the journalistic process. Whether or not you like Assange, the charge against him is a serious press freedom threat and should be vigorously protested by all those who care about the First Amendment.

Ben Wizner, American Civil Liberties Union:

Criminally prosecuting a publisher for the publication of truthful information would be a first in American history, and unconstitutional. The government did not cross that Rubicon with today’s indictment, but the worst case scenario cannot yet be ruled out. We have no assurance that these are the only charges the government plans to bring against Mr. Assange. Further, while there is no First Amendment right to crack a government password, this indictment characterizes as ‘part of’ a criminal conspiracy the routine and protected activities journalists often engage in as part of their daily jobs, such as encouraging a source to provide more information. Given President Trump’s and his administration’s well-documented attacks on the freedom of the press, such characterizations are especially worrisome.

Robert Mahoney, Committee to Protect Journalists:

The potential implications for press freedom of this allegation of conspiracy between publisher and source are deeply troubling. With this prosecution of Julian Assange, the U.S. government could set out broad legal arguments about journalists soliciting information or interacting with sources that could have chilling consequences for investigative reporting and the publication of information of public interest.

Reporters Without Borders:

While we investigate the implications of the US Justice Department’s charges against Julian Assange, which are specific to his interactions with a source, we reiterate our concern that the prosecution of those who provide or publish information of public interest comes at the expense of the investigative journalism that allows a democracy to thrive.

Electronic Frontier Foundation:

While the indictment of Julian Assange centers on an alleged attempt to break a password—an attempt that was not apparently successful—it is still, at root, an attack on the publication of leaked material and the most recent act in an almost decade-long effort to punish a whistleblower and the publisher of her leaked material. Several parts of the indictment describe very common journalistic behavior, like using cloud storage or knowingly receiving classified information or redacting identifying information about a source. Other parts make common free software tools like Linux and Jabber seem suspect. And while we are relieved that the government has not chosen to include publication-based charges today, if Assange is indeed extradited, the government can issue superseding indictments. It should not do so. Leaks are a vital part of the free flow of information that is essential to our democracy. Reporting on leaked materials, including reporting on classified information, is an essential role of American journalism.

https://freedom.press/news/civil-liberties-groups-condemn-trump-admins-indictment-julian-assange/
FreedomEyeLove
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 13 Apr, 2019 07:09 am
https://i0.wp.com/www.bookwormroom.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Mueller-Report-12.jpg

https://static.pjmedia.com/trending/user-content/51/files/2019/03/evidence.jpg
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 13 Apr, 2019 08:05 am
@Lash,
Quote:
The Obama administration refrained from indicting Assange for fear of establishing "a precedent that could chill investigative reporting about national security matters by treating it as a crime," according to Charlie Savage of The New York Times. Obama's government had difficulty distinguishing between what WikiLeaks did and what traditional news media organizations like the Times "do in soliciting and publishing information they obtain that the government wants to keep secret," Savage wrote. News organizations, including the Times, published articles that drew on documents WikiLeaks had published in 2010, including "logs of significant combat events in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq."

The New York Times' exposure of secrets was indeed troubling.

But they never wantonly exposed the identity of underground democracy activists to dictators the way Assange deliberately did.


Quote:
Meanwhile, Assange vows to fight extradition to the United States. Under the 2003 extradition treaty between the U.S. and the U.K., the U.K. can deny extradition if the offense sought is punishable by death. The U.S. Justice Department is apparently planning to file new charges against Assange, in addition to those listed in the 2018 indictment. But under the 2003 treaty, the United States cannot charge Assange with violation of the Espionage Act, because it carries the death penalty.

We could still charge him with it. All we'd have to do is promise not to pursue the death penalty as a condition of the extradition. It's not like the death penalty is a mandatory sentence.

I'm not a fan of the death penalty in any case, so I'm fine with forgoing it.


Quote:
Moreover, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment forbids extradition to a country where there are substantial grounds to believe the person would be in danger of being tortured.

The danger of torture in the U.S. is real.

Nonsense.


Quote:
During the first 11 months of Manning's incarceration in 2010, she was held in solitary confinement and subjected to humiliating forced nudity during daily inspection. The former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture called Manning's treatment cruel, inhuman and degrading, possibly rising to the level of torture.

There is a reason why no one takes the UN seriously.


Quote:
There is thus good reason to believe Assange might be subjected to such illegal treatment if he were extradited to the United States.

Segregating vulnerable prisoners is hardly illegal.

But by all means, throw him in general population.


Quote:
A few days before Assange's removal from the embassy and arrest, Nils Metzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, warned that extradition to the U.S. "could expose him to a real risk of serious violations of his human rights, including his freedom of expression, his right to a fair trial and the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

There is a reason why no one takes the UN seriously.


Quote:
Assange's prosecution is unprecedented.
"The Justice Department has never charged journalists with violating the law for doing their jobs," Savage wrote.
"Reporting on leaked materials, including reporting on classified information, is an essential role of American journalism," the Electronic Frontier Foundation said in a statement.

There is a difference between "reporting" and "outing underground democracy activists".


Quote:
Kristinn Hrafnsson, editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, responded to Assange's indictment, saying, "This is journalism. It's called 'conspiracy.' It's conspiracy to commit journalism."

Exposing the identity of underground democracy activists to dictators is anything but journalism.


Quote:
The U.K. must deny the extradition of Assange to the United States.

If we are prevented from getting our hands on him, the US government should follow Putin's lead and assassinate him.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't wait our turn before we get our hands on him of course. I mean if he is set free and someone protects him from US justice.

We should perhaps be a bit sloppier than Putin is when it comes to collateral damage. There is no need for surgical precision when a large airstrike will do the job.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sat 13 Apr, 2019 08:44 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Segregating vulnerable prisoners is hardly illegal.

But by all means, throw him in general population.

How hard/expensive do you think it will be to have him killed and/or tortured if other prisoners within the general population have access to him? Do you think prisoners are too honorable to be paid/bartered to abuse some other inmate?

It seems like he's already been tortured in the embassy. Who smears feces on a wall except as an animal-like reaction to extreme stress? I couldn't believe his behavior was described as "rude response of a guest to hosts." Of course maybe I am just being suspicious and they were just taking really good care of him and he decided to smear feces on the wall as an act of unprovoked aggression. Who can say, really?
RABEL222
 
  3  
Reply Sat 13 Apr, 2019 03:48 pm
@livinglava,
Or he could be smearing feces on the walls to make idiots think he is crazy.
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 14 Apr, 2019 01:13 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

Or he could be smearing feces on the walls to make idiots think he is crazy.

That level of self-torture amount to actual insanity. Who can intentionally ensure the smell of feces smeared across a wall until they are frothing-at-the-mouth nuts, temporarily or otherwise?
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Apr, 2019 06:32 pm
@glitterbag,
The bible said its o k. And in the u s the bible takes presidence over the constitution which Trump hasent read yet.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Apr, 2019 06:35 pm
@livinglava,
Men will do anything to keep their asses out of jail.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Apr, 2019 11:18 pm
@glitterbag,
glitterbag wrote:

What I don't understand is, why hasn't our current administration been hauled before the European Court of Human Rights to explain why this govt is separating toddlers from their mothers and housing them in cages or in huge tents in the desert.


LOL you do know that we never agree to be under that court and congress already pass a law allowing the president to use military force of all things if a member of our military is being held by this court or any similar court.

Americans even non Trump supporters such as myself would not put up with a foreign court having any say in our behaviors.

That said I can only hope that our courts will step in and limit Trump behaviors.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2019 01:09 am
@BillRM,
Of course not. Nobody would expect America to sign up to the European court, America isn't part of Europe after all.

The international court is something else. While America refuses to accept international law, protect war criminals like Bush and conduct illegal wars like those in Iraq, resentment will build up and make further 9/11s more likely.
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2019 04:59 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Of course not. Nobody would expect America to sign up to the European court, America isn't part of Europe after all.

The international court is something else. While America refuses to accept international law, protect war criminals like Bush and conduct illegal wars like those in Iraq, resentment will build up and make further 9/11s more likely.

The problem is these supernational institutions have built-in problems that aren't apparent without close scrutiny. With the Paris accord, for example, there is an incentive to trigger higher CO2 emissions in other countries with trade to effectuate higher payments into the climate funds, etc.

You always have to look at who has to benefit/gain from a given institution or agreement in order to see how it can be abused/exploited.

Every marketing scam looks good superficially or else it wouldn't work as a scam.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2019 05:12 am
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:
The problem is these supernational institutions have built-in problems that aren't apparent without close scrutiny. With the Paris accord, scam.
I don't know what the "paris accord" is. But perhaps you mean the "Paris Agreement"
The latter has nothing at all to do with European Court of Human Rights, international court established by the European Convention on Human Rights. The Paris Agreement is not a court but as an - as the name suggest - an agreement, not by the Council of Europe but within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

livinglava wrote:
Every marketing scam looks good superficially or else it wouldn't work as a scam.
Why do you consider the European Convention of Human Rights to be "marketing scam"?
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2019 06:16 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Because that's what he was told to think.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/18/2019 at 01:19:00