Wednesday, October 26, 2011

I Know You Are, But What Am I?

It’s always fun to see Republicans get angry at things Democratic politicians do, but not angry at Republican politicians for doing the same exact thing. Especially when Republicans did it first.

It’s also always fun to listen to Republicans accuse Democrats of playing the “Blame Game” and insist it doesn’t matter how something happened – when Republicans are at fault. Then immediately blame Obama or Clinton or Carter for things that Bush and Reagan and Ford did.

The names have been changed to protect the innocent and the guilty – and all the shady characters in between.


This was originally from February 16th of this year.

Someone needed to say it. More people should be repeating it.

So, let me get this straight....Obama gets more than 2 years to get things going on the right track, while blaming Bush all along, but Speaker Boehner gets a month??? Bad, Bad Rachel......

So, let me get this straight . . . you're pretending that people on the other side of the fence haven't done this to Obama since before he was even elected? Or that they didn't blame Clinton for an entire 8 yrs? Or that they ran on jobs and cutting spending, but they are concerned more about abortion (which IS legal in this country) than jobs? How exactly are they going to get things on the right track when they don't even follow the house rules that THEY put into place? Give me a break. If Pelosi cried like Boehner does, or said "so be it" in regard to jobs being lost, Republicans would've laid it on her much thicker only with less facts – if any at all.

Thank you for bringing up the blame thing. Reminded me of one of my favorite daily show clips: The Daily Show: Blame

Bill Mancuso
So, let me get this straight... I still hear Carter being brought up and blamed.

Boehner complaining incessantly for two years about "Obama, where are the jobs?" – and now just said he didn't care if jobs were lost. That’s not hypocritical? And he is fighting to spend a few BILLION dollars more on an unnecessary extra jet engine that the pentagon has explicitly said it does NOT want while simultaneously complaining Obama is spending needlessly. Etc, etc, etc, etc....

The Republican party itself is going against Boehner!!! Bad, Bad Boehner.......

We didn't magically inherit the biggest federal government in the HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES from Bill Clinton. We inherited it from George W. Bush. We didn't inherit TWO WARS IN THE MIDDLE EAST from Bill Clinton. We inherited it from George W. Bush. He should be blamed. The problem is that conservatives seem to not want to play the blame game when their guy is actually to blame.

Apparently the Republican Party is only interested in taking responsibility for its actions when those actions are praiseworthy. When they aren't, they come at you with "You can't blame Bush for everything!"

It's his fault. Plain and simple. If you don't understand how messed up this country is because of the actions of that administration, you are deeply deluded.

Conservative assholes like Sarah Palin sit back and play Monday Morning Quarterback while people who actually understand politics, economics, history and geography try to clean up the mess.

Boehner has been given the keys to the kingdom, and he's being made fun of by George and Barbara Bush. He isn't getting things done. I would have less of a problem with him and other Republicans if they HADN'T RUN ON THE PLATFORM OF "WE'LL FIX IT!!"

Instead they are running around trying to stop funding for abortions. Please enlighten me on how that is related to the economy or jobs. It's not. The Republicans are trying to do exactly what they warned us the Democrats would do if they controlled the Legislature: Force social reforms on us.

They don't want big government... well, unless you've been raped, or you are gay, or you need an abortion because childbirth might kill you or your husband has been raping you nightly, or you are a Corporation that might not be able to influence every aspect of the federal government through lobbyists and campaign finances, or if you are an immigrant. In those instances Republicans are ALL ABOUT big government. They can't get enough of it.

Sorry Jack, have to disagree. It's amazing that the 9-11 attacks happened in less than a year after Bush took office, yet you think Clinton knew nothing about this threat. The oversize government has gotten out of control because of neither Clinton nor Bush, this oversize bulling dictative government is a result of Obama's 2 years and the Democrats having close to total control during that time with no opposition. Too bad when Obama pulled us out of that ditch he didn't notice that he pulled us right on to the train tracks with trains coming in both directions. Personally I wish they would go back to school and relearn how economics works and how taxing us to death does not create jobs.

Here are two themes incessantly repeated by Republicans. You will notice them surface throughout this blog:
A.) "Democrats think they can tax us into prosperity." No, they don't. They want to cut needless and unfair tax loopholes for the rich so their tax rates are close to the middle class rates. And no one is being taxed to death. America is currently enjoying the lowest tax levels in over 50 years. 
B.) "Lowering taxes for corporations creates jobs." Lowering taxes for corporations does not create jobs. No Republican can give a specific example of this ever happening. I keep asking, though.

Excellent, Tabitha!!!

Thank you.

Bill Mancuso
Well said, Jack. I appreciate how you used facts to make your point. I also got a chuckle when those facts were completely ignored and other laughably wrong Conservative talking points were brought up in the next post. Which is what invariably happens when people get their info from the most inaccurate and made-up "news" channel, FOX.

For example, Obama actually lowered taxes - except in the Foxosphere.

Anyone interested in some facts about the 9/11 attacks and who knew what when? No? Too bad, because I really hate ignorance, so I need to school you right now with the truth.

Much of what comes next (the words in orange) was already chronicled in my August 24, 2011 post, “A Conversation with the Decider.”

Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. He and Bin laden had polar opposite philosophies on life and would never under any circumstances work together. Hussein was not interested in religious piety but in greed, power, money and women. Bin Laden, however, is a religious fundamentalist. Polar opposites. Bush just tried to connect them because they were both from the middle east. Hussein also had a standing order to capture or kill any Al-Qaeda members found operating within the boundary of Iraq.

Over 14 United States and international agencies told both Bush and Cheney that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had any weapons of mass destruction whatsoever. But that didn’t stop the both of them from going on T.V. almost every day and lying to the American people by saying they had proof that he did. And Bush used fear tactics like saying “If we don’t fight them over there, we’ll have to fight them over here.” Nonsense. And belligerent playground bully ultimatums like “You’re either with us or you’re against us.” And, “They hate us for our freedom.” That’s just plain stupid. No one hates freedom. They hate us because we’re THERE.

And if they hate freedom so much, why do they want it so bad as evidenced in what's going on over there right now without our having to illegally invade, overthrow, occupy and force it upon them? (I am referring to the Arab Spring.)

Democrats are weak on national defense has been a Republican talking point since Reagan. And Republicans repeat it over and over to brainwash people into thinking it is so. But the facts do not bear out that claim. During the first year and a half since President Obama took office, his administration has captured or killed as many terrorist operatives as the Bush administration did in seven years. Obama just doesn't parade it in front of the cameras boasting about it like Bush did. Maybe he’s just more interested in actually getting the job done than standing in front of a camera to get the glory and feel popular. I haven’t seen him playing dress-up in any flight suits yet. That’s the behavior of an insecure, small-minded person.

He has also employed the use of drones so as not to put American lives in harm’s way. And claiming drones are worse than boots on the ground is partisan rhetoric. It’s no different than mortar fire or missile launches, high altitude bombing, RPGs, any long range weaponry, really. And no one ever complained about those. Actually, the main difference is a drone has a camera and actually may aide in target accuracy, limiting collateral damage.

You're right about one thing, though. Clinton absolutely DID know about Bin Laden. It's just that FOX "News" ignores all the following facts to try and blame the attacks on Clinton and pretend it wasn't Bush's fault...

In 1995, President Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 39 that instructed the CIA to capture foreign terrorists by force, even without the cooperation of the host government. It was also accepted that "accidentally" killing Bin Laden in the process of capturing him was not discouraged.

In January of 1996 the CIA created the unit code-named “Alec Station” whose sole function was to capture Bin Laden. Then, in 1998, President Clinton created the office of national coordinator for counter-terrorism and placed Richard Clarke in that position.

Several efforts were made by the Clinton administration to capture or kill Bin Laden. Some were aborted due to lack of confidence in intelligence gathered. However, President Clinton authorized two U.S. cruise missile attack submarines to sit off the Pakistani coast for months waiting for any word on Bin Laden’s whereabouts.

On August 20, 1998, Clinton’s CIA launched sixty Tomahawk cruise missiles at an Afghan camp where Bin Laden was believed to be, but he left approximately an hour earlier.

Clinton may not have captured Bin Laden, but it was certainly not for a lack of trying. Bush, however, actually did do nothing. When he took office, he terminated unit “Alec Station.” Remember? The unit formed to specifically to capture Bin Laden? Then he went on vacation. A lot. 908 days out of the 2,920 days of his presidency was spent on vacation. That’s one full third of his term in office. Two and a half years of improving his swing, improving his time jogging a mile and improving time time cycling. And clearing brush. All of which he quite often bragged about on T.V. while soldiers were dying for his needless wars half way around the world.

In the summer of 2001, after Bush took office, the number of threats to commit terrorist acts upon American soil by Al-Qaeda surged in June and July according to reports from U.S. intelligence agencies. A terrorist threat advisory from the State Department in June indicated a high probability of “spectacular” terrorist attacks in the near future. On June 25, counter-terrorism expert Richard Clark warned National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice that six separate U.S. intelligence reports showed Al-Qaeda was preparing for a pending attack. Intelligence reporting consistently described the upcoming attacks would be calamitous, indicating world turmoil. On June 28, Clarke wrote Rice that a series of new reports convinced him and intelligence analysts at the Department of State, CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and NSA that a MAJOR Al-Qaeda terrorist attack or series of attacks was likely in July. A June 30 CIA report was titled “Bin Laden Planning High-Profile Attacks” and said they were expecting to have “dramatic consequences of catastrophic proportions” very soon.

Even Bush's friend, CIA director George Tenet acknowledged things could not get any worse. Between Bush's first day in office on January 20, 2001 and September 10, 2001, over FORTY (yes, FORTY) reports related to Bin Laden were turned over to him at the President’s Daily Brief by either Tenet or one of his deputies.

Then, on August 6, while Bush was on a five-week vacation in Crawford, he was briefed by a CIA official on a top secret memo titled “Bin Laden Determined To Strike U.S.” The memo cited evidence of active Al-Qaeda cells currently in the United States and that the FBI observed patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for the hijacking of planes or other types of attacks and the surveillance of federal buildings in New York. The memo also noted that Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and bring the fighting to America. And the FBI conducted approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considered Bin Laden-related.

And when Bush received this memo on August sixth on vacation at Crawford ranch, he did nothing. He stayed on vacation until August thirtieth. He received a memo titled “Bin Laden Determined To Strike U.S.” and did absolutely NOTHING FOR TWENTY-FOUR MORE DAYS. Except continue to clear brush.

In December of 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said at a televised press conference that the American military learned Osama Bin Laden was hiding in Tora Bora. The action Bush took regarding this information was to not send one single American soldier to capture or kill him. Not one. He never sent any American soldiers after Bin Laden. The man responsible for the murder of almost three thousand innocent American citizens in New York, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania and he never sent us after him. Instead, Bush had three anti-Taliban Afghan warlords and their men handle it. And knowing that Bin Laden’s most likely escape route was crossing the southeastern border of Afghanistan into Pakistan, Bush also did nothing. Rumsfeld again on T.V. said we were going to rely on the Pakistani military - without any involvement of the U.S. military - to stop Bin Laden. Haji Mohammed Zaman, one of the Afghan warlords told the press, “If America wants to capture Osama, why aren’t they trying?” One of Zaman’s top aides said, “I don’t think the United States wants to capture Osama. We know where he is, we tell them and they do nothing. So they are not as serious as they say they are.” It seems to me that Bush didn’t want to capture Bin Laden either. If he did, it would be over. Public support for him to do anything in his alleged global war on terror would vanish. And Bush wouldn’t be able to capitalize on Bin Laden still being out there to give him time to invent a reason to invade Iraq. Was it oil? Did Bush want to show his daddy he was a man and could finish what his daddy couldn’t? Why did he commit the United States to an invasion and occupation of a country that was making NO threats beyond its borders, was PROVEN to NOT be constructing weapons of mass destruction, was NOT at war and made NO declaration of war to us or anyone else? Why did Bush intentionally lie over and over to America? Why are we now in the longest war the United States has ever fought? Longer than Viet Nam. Why have more brave and noble Americans died SINCE September eleventh, BECAUSE of September eleventh than in the actual attacks OF September eleventh?

And by the way, terrorism is a tactic, an idea. You cannot wage a war against an idea. Bush's wars are without focus, they are costly, they weakened the economy and safety of our country and needlessly put American lives at risk.

If Bush really thought we had to fight the 'evildoers' and the "Axis of Evil" (does than not sound like it came directly from a '60s Marvel comic book?), he would have taken countermeasures long before September eleventh based on all the reports he was receiving on a daily basis.

And talking about understanding economics: these two unnecessary Republican wars and Republican tax breaks to the top 2% richest of Americans and Republican deregulated Wall Street is why we're in this financial crisis. All of which happened long before Obama set foot in the White House. Blaming Obama for things that happened before he was even President would be funny if it wasn't so ignorant.

Okay, you’re right about one (Just one?) thing, I'm not well informed about all of the war issues. I do know that Obama did not lower taxes (You know what FOX told you - not any facts, though.) he extended what Bush implemented-no new tax cuts and they expire in 2012. I know (the FOX fact) that the stimulus package did very little for job growth. And I know that Obama thinks these tax cuts or continuation of them is unnecessary government spending (Which they are, according to economists.). The money you make belongs to the government and they decide how much you can keep (Which liar on FOX told you that?). I also know that his hiring of czars is unconstitutional. I know that we've given him 2 years and things are worse than they were at the end of Bush's term (Bush's clusterfuck snowball is still rolling - it will probably get even bigger unless the Republicans stop filibustering EVERYTHING Obama tries to do to help.) and I didn't even think that was possible. I know that the liberal controlled media will always turn things around to make the right look like crazy loons (If simply playing the recorded footage of what Republicans say is "making them look like crazy loons," then I accept your definition of the "liberal controlled media."). Take a good look sometime of how differently they report something the left does against something the right does. (When it's the same thing) If you want to believe their spin on things that's up to you. Personally I wish he would be more like Reagan like he tries to make us think he is and instead of blaming his predecessor start fixing things. Reagan could have blamed a lot of the 70's-80's economical mess on Carter, but he didn't (Yes, he did.). He worked on fixing things to pull us out (Well, he worked on things to help the wealthy get wealthier - and it worked.). We all need to stop playing the blame game in government and work on fixing it. One last thing I've noticed from the left. I believe the new Republicans have only been in office since Nov. yet the left expect them to have fixed everything by now why is that? I also noticed you mentioned Bush's vacation time spent. So tell me how much has Obama been on Vacation. I do believe it's been more in 2 years than Bush took in 8 (Not according to facts. Unless you've figured a way to cram the two and a half years of Bush's vacation time into the two years so far of Obama's Presidency.). But I'm just a crazy conservative and proud not to be a bleeding heart liberal.

And let the Liberal name-calling BEGIN!!! (Thanks, Bill Mancuso)

I do believe the first time anyone leveled a name at someone was Tabitha just then in her last sentence. Douchebag.

Well done Jack and Bill.

It figures, FARRAH.........

Let's give Obama 6 MORE years to get His head out of His ASS.....

Cousin Eric - I just like the use of facts when making an argument.

Oh, OK, I wouldn't know about that, however, Tabitha states some pretty good facts on Her post, and you seem to have omitted Her from your" well done "post.....

Bill Mancuso
I can't do this argument again. This is about the 12th time. Here's the problem, almost everything you said doesn't really exist outside the Foxosphere. You're just repeating Conservative talking point words with no facts to back them up like 'czars', 'unconstitutional', 'stimulus package', 'liberal controlled media' and 'Reagan.' Why don't you also throw in 'America', 'patriotic', 'freedom', 'liberty' and 'second amendment' as well and get in the rest of the Conservative talking point words?

Obama did lower taxes. Look it up. The stimulus did create jobs. Look it up. Reagan blamed Carter well into his second term. Look it up. Reaganomics screwed the middle class. Look it up. Czars? Do you know what that means or did you just hear it on FOX as something bad and choose to repeat it as if it has actual meaning?

I can't keep going point-by-point through what you said and telling you to look up the facts, but if you choose to look any of it up, try not to go to right or left wing media outlets. Look them up at their sources so the information isn't filtered to fit an agenda. As an example, you said you KNOW the stimulus did very little for job growth. That is a lie you are repeating that you heard on FOX "News." If you went directly to the CBO report, you would KNOW differently.

And when did I ever call anyone a name, Eric? You just made that up. Did you run out of old lies so you decided to make up a new one? What is the point?

Cousin Eric - I guess I should have said I like the use of ACTUAL facts. Thanks for making the point Bill. Oh...time for Rachel Maddow!!!

Rachel Maddow, I really don't get your point; when will you learn that you're NOT a comedienne?

My point is that the Rachel Maddow Show is on right now and I was going to watch it on TV.

Ugh.....I cannot BRING MYSELF to watch "The Rachel Maddow" show...

Really I was just taunting you Eric, I didn't think it would take long for you to reply :)

Jack, The way I see it, it doesn't matter WHAT we inherited from WHOM (Which backs up Jack’s earlier point that Republicans never want to play the blame game when it’s something they’re responsible for.). It's there and ours to deal with or not.

As far as "If some of those jobs are lost in this, so be it" (although seemingly insensitive) To me that doesn't say that jobs are 'easy come, easy go.' But, it IS the truth. We have NO money to employ and the "so be it" part will happen if the current policies are continued, THAT'S THE FACT/TRUTH.  

It’s the truth “if the current policies are continued” only since Republicans keep filibustering any and every program that might help, but it’s NOT what Boehner said. He said Republicans will have to cut jobs to save money – but that’s a lie: 

If appointing "Czars" is unconstitutional, where were your protests when Bush appointed them? Most of the appointments to those positions are to continue to fill posts created by Bush.

As to wanting the new Legislature to get stuff done so quickly, that's just turnabout for the treatment of Obama. The Republican Party spent 1 day as the "loyal opposition" and then began taking every possible step to block any meaningful legislation, encouraging as much hatred as possible along the way.

And Reagan ABSOLUTELY blamed Carter's administration for the recession that really had its roots in the Ford administration. The difference in that case is that Democrats held the Legislature and they actually worked to get things fixed.

As to "giving" Obama six more years:

First, he already has two more years. It took 8 years to get us into this mess, why would you think it would take less than that amount of time to get out of it? In the 90's, Clinton worked with the Legislature. Government growth was in line with population growth. It was balanced. We had a budget surplus that Bush gave the lion's share of to the richest people in the country. He then waged two wars without accounting for the cost of war in Afghanistan in his budget. We had troops there, we were fighting there, apparently at no cost to the tax payers.

Obama has presented budgets which account for continued operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan with the often stated goal of bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice, something that conservatives seem to not care about.

Jack, It's pretty inconsequential where I was when Dubya appointed some (He did not ask where you were, he asked why you didn't protest Bush for doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING as Obama in appointing "Czars."). We have bigger fish to fry than to play 'gotcha' and point fingers. (Except, apparently, when Republicans want to.)

I know that you know that we have big problems and I don't think we have enough BIG people in DC. So, it's up to the citizens to be the big people that the Washington people aren't. It's time for the yous and mes to put our heads together.

Farrah....Sorry it took me 5 long minutes, I'm also watching the Hawks game in the other room...LUV YA, CUZ.....

I'd LOVE to put my head together with Jack, I think He would drop like a bad habit.....(LOL)

I'm not the one talking about the constitutionality of appointing "Czars" (something that even Reagan did, by the way). That was brought up as some kind of "see Obama is bad" point. The fact is, it's not unconstitutional. But if that point isn't refuted, it gives the appearance of being true. It's a tactic that is designed to wear out the target.

I'd love to put my head together with people. The problem is that I've yet to meet a conservative who doesn't worship the ground that their party members walk on. I've yet to hear any Conservative say anything about the fact that taxes for MOST of us have gone DOWN, something that Obama has done. Instead it's more rhetoric about how it was really Bush from beyond the grave.

I am completely open to compromise, so is Obama. Those olive branches have been constantly thrown back in our faces while conservatives and Republicans essentially lie about things. I wasn't old enough to vote for Reagan, but I would have. I think that were he alive today, he'd be sickened by the lengths that his party will go to in order to win a talking point, let alone an election.

Eric, when Rachel was an analyst on MSNBC, I watched because her intelligence was so impressive. Now that she has her own show and try as I may, I can't watch Rachel or Chris Matthews. Morning Joe can be ok at times.

Trying to catch up here. Wow.
I don't have much that I could add to this that Jack and Bill haven't already said, and it most likely wouldn't matter anyway.

All I can say is this (which is just reiterating what Bill said) look it up. At least try watching another news source (what is so awful about Rachel or Chris that you can't watch a little bit?). If you question what they say, look it up yourselves. It's crazy to get your news from one source or even just two. Watch c-span (unless you have high blood pressure, because holy moly . . .). Better yet, turn off the tv and read some news. Go to government websites, look it up. Don't take what the media is telling you as truth. LOOK IT UP.

Also, thank you all for an interesting read and for keeping it civil.

Bill Mancuso
According to one source, I’m a Liberal and I’ve been calling people names.

But seriously, if this was my first time going through this topic, I would have been swearing and name-calling all over the place. This is like the dozenth time I'm listening to FOX talking points that don't have any bearing on the real world. Next up, someone's going to tell me about 'Obamacare Death Panels.' True in the Foxosphere, but non-existent in the real world. Then when the truth is pointed out, it's completely ignored and another FOX talking point is hurled at me and the nonsense continues.

And just saying, "Bush didn't do it, Clinton did." is not a fact. Or even information, for that matter.

Just tired of being surrounded by willful ignorance.

Preaching to the choir. Especially the willful ignorance part. Not only am I tired of it, I am starting to fear it.

Hi Bill, "this is like the dozenth time I'm listening to FOX talking points that don't have any bearing on the real world. "

WHAT in particular are the talking points that don't have any bearing on the real world? If what the media talks about DOESN'T have any bearing in the real world, we should hold their feet to the fire. They report to us and work for US. If you don't like what you hear, how many times have you written, e-mailed, called to say why you disagree with what they portray?

The claim that the appointment of Czars is unconstitutional. The claim that the Health Care Reform Bill would institute Death Panels. The claim that taxes have gone up in the Obama administration. The claim that the stimulus has created no jobs. The claim that all media is liberal-controlled. These points have all been presented as facts by Fox News on a regular basis apparently in hopes that if they are repeated enough they will become treated as being true.

The media does not work for us or report to us. The only media that comes close to that is publicly funded media which the Republicans are trying to defund.

It's more important to contact your representatives (and in my opinion, those in other districts/states also) and tell THEM how you feel.

The Fourth Estate (also known as the News, Media, Press) is supposed to report information objectively. That pretty much ended with the advent of advertising. All Television Outlets are guilty of bias nowadays. Fox has held fundraiser rallies for and contributed to political campaigns directly, yet somehow people claim they are unbiased. It's simply not true, especially to people who see Fox lie about things every day.

It's pretty much the same as how die hard Fox News fans feel about MSNBC or CNN.

Jack, The appointment of czars IS unconstitutional. There is no place [that I know of] in the Constitution that such power is given to men/women who are not elected. If there is, I'd like to know exactly when it was said.

"Czar" is a term coined by the media, and appointed individuals have existed within administrations since the days of FDR. Nixon and Ford revived their usage during their administrations, and George W. Bush appointed the most "Czars" of any President.

Did you write to your representatives and senators when Karl Rove was the Domestic Policy Czar?

If the appointment of individuals to those positions is unconstitutional, why haven't any appointments been taken to the Supreme Court? It seems pretty cut and dried to me. When Bush was appointing people, I didn't see Fox News reporting how unfair and unconstitutional it was. It's disingenuous to suggest illegality for one administration while ignoring the same behavior from the previous one.

Bill Mancuso
I did not say 'the media has no bearing on the real world.' I said 'FOX has no bearing on the real world.' FOX is not “news” media. Real news anchors would be fired for blatantly lying like they do on FOX. Since Ailes and Murdoch mandate them to portray Republicans favorably and Democrats unfavorably, no one will be fired if they lie to do that. In fact, they have gotten more money for doing so.

Please excuse that some of these videos are from liberal media outlets, but it's irrelevant since it's just footage of FOX deliberately editing video to fit their Republican fund raising agenda - I mean deliberately lying. And FOX “News” certainly isn’t going to do any reporting on how FOX “News” is lying to you.

This one is fucked up about Monsanto & FOX:
Fox News Whistle blowers. UNBELIEVABLE!!! 

And finally, there's this 1 hour 20 minute documentary:

No comments:

Post a Comment