Yes, my little sleepwalking comrades, you might as well surrender yourself and everything you own to the STATE right now and save yourselves the aggravation of having them take it from you. Why? ... because ONLY the STATE knows best; because ONLY the STATE can protect you from your enemies (and yourself); because ONLY the STATE knows how to educate your (their) children (and teach them to appreciate and swear their allegiance to the STATE; because ONLY the STATE can keep and eye on (or get rid of) those nasty anti-STATE neighbors of yours; because ONLY the STATE can make sure that nobody makes too much money or gets so powerful that he/she can say and do as he/she pleases (especially if he/she is producing goods or creating processes that make us less dependent on the state)... "oh say does that star and sicle banner yet wave?"
Use this link to put the rss feed from this blog on your site: http://passgo.blogspot.com/atom.xml
Friday, August 27, 2004
Friday, August 13, 2004
Sleepwalkers REJOICE!! Goss Is Your Man!
Sleepwalkers!
You are getting the CIA chief that you deserve. Read this piece from "The Village Voice" that contains many revealing facts about Mr. Goss.
Food for Thought
In the search for intelligence life, Porter Goss is strictly from hunger
Here's the news that made many people in the Eastern Time Zone heave up their breakfasts at 8:31 this morning: President Bush introduced Porter Goss as the new CIA director.
Bush called Goss a "reformer." The two of them ought to be toast.
How fitting that this is the same House Intelligence chairman Porter Goss who was having breakfast in D.C. on 9-11 with Pakistan's security chief, Lieutenant General Mahmoud Ahmad—who was later revealed to be hijacker Mohammed Atta's bagman.
The Washington Post's Rich Leiby mentioned the breakfast as a cheery aside in a May 18, 2002, puff profile of Goss. Florida senator Bob Graham was also munching with Mahmoud, as the Post and others, including the Asia Times have reported. But why didn't the Post mention the chowdown in its first lengthy stories this morning?
Digest this: The two Floridians wound up running the joint congressional inquiry into 9-11 in their roles as chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence committees. Not a word of the breakfast appears in Goss-Graham 858-page report. No one's saying that Goss and Graham are necessarily hiding any big thing. But the breakfast, in retrospect, is at least somewhat embarrassing. And is it really such a worthless fact that it merited no mention at all?
And chew on another factoid: This is the same Porter Goss who stood up on the floor of the U.S. House on October 9, 2002, during the crucial debate about whether to authorize Bush to go to war against Iraq, and said, according to the Congressional Record (search under 107th Congress), that the 9-11 attack "was delivered by depraved men."
Two quick questions: Was the Pakistani general too depraved to have another cinnamon roll that morning? Or was he just full?
Goss also said on October 9, 2002:
Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and their radical ilk are at the epicenter of terrorist activity in the Middle East. Nobody doubts that. It is not debatable. President Bush, Prime Minister Blair and others have made convincing cases about the threats the despotic Iraqi regime poses to world peace and stability today—today as well as tomorrow.
And he added:
Iraq has expanded its weapons of mass destruction capabilities against its pledge not to. It still has deadly chemical weapons hidden throughout the country, and it has tried to develop nuclear devices as well. It is certain that Iraq has ties to many Islamic terror groups in the region, including Al Qaeda. Evidence supports Iraq's involvement in the first and probably the second World Trade Center bombing.
So, let's see: Goss, a former CIA agent, ignored studying something that did happen—his breakfast with the bagman of a 9-11 hijacker—while strongly pushing for a war based on a "threat" to our security that didn't exist.
Sure, let's make him CIA director. What the hell. He's been an effective stonewaller and excuse-maker ever since 9-11.
"No smoking gun," he said in 2002, when the Goss-Graham report was released.
It's "not about blame," he said in 2003. Here's his full quote from that rare public hearing of his House panel on 9-11 investigations, as reported by PBS at the time: "None of remarks we're talking about, nor any of history, and this certainly carries over to the 9-11 review, it's not about blame. This is about better protecting the United States of America in the world as it is today."
Keep this in mind: Since 9-11, various probes have found that the hijackers and other Al Qaeda operatives were constantly coming and going through Pakistan before the fateful day.
In the Goss-Graham report, you'll find Pakistan all over the 858 pages, but not a crumb from the 9-11 breakfast. What was talked about? Why was Pakistan's version of a CIA-FBI director in D.C. at that time? Who knew what? And when?
At the time of the attacks, the U.S. had a complex and rocky relationship with Pakistan. During the Reagan era, the U.S. helped finance and arm Arab militants so they could drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. It's common knowledge that neighboring Pakistan was the base for those militants. And the agency Ahmad ran, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), was often on friendly terms with the Taliban and other Arab militants but on shaky terms with the U.S.
Judge for yourself who's smoking what by going to the Center for Cooperative Research's unparalleled website of heavily annotated 9-11 timelines and essays. Search "Goss" and see what comes up.
The best analysis of this naggingly curious breakfast is perhaps this piece by Michel Chossudovsky, director of the Centre for Research on Globalization, a Canadian outfit that boldly goes where most other probers don't.
It's more interesting than the congressional report produced by Goss and Graham. Or is it? Would you like an after-meal HUMINT?
posted: august 10th at 6:04 pm
Use this link to put the rss feed from this blog on your site: http://passgo.blogspot.com/atom.xml
You are getting the CIA chief that you deserve. Read this piece from "The Village Voice" that contains many revealing facts about Mr. Goss.
Food for Thought
In the search for intelligence life, Porter Goss is strictly from hunger
Here's the news that made many people in the Eastern Time Zone heave up their breakfasts at 8:31 this morning: President Bush introduced Porter Goss as the new CIA director.
Bush called Goss a "reformer." The two of them ought to be toast.
How fitting that this is the same House Intelligence chairman Porter Goss who was having breakfast in D.C. on 9-11 with Pakistan's security chief, Lieutenant General Mahmoud Ahmad—who was later revealed to be hijacker Mohammed Atta's bagman.
The Washington Post's Rich Leiby mentioned the breakfast as a cheery aside in a May 18, 2002, puff profile of Goss. Florida senator Bob Graham was also munching with Mahmoud, as the Post and others, including the Asia Times have reported. But why didn't the Post mention the chowdown in its first lengthy stories this morning?
Digest this: The two Floridians wound up running the joint congressional inquiry into 9-11 in their roles as chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence committees. Not a word of the breakfast appears in Goss-Graham 858-page report. No one's saying that Goss and Graham are necessarily hiding any big thing. But the breakfast, in retrospect, is at least somewhat embarrassing. And is it really such a worthless fact that it merited no mention at all?
And chew on another factoid: This is the same Porter Goss who stood up on the floor of the U.S. House on October 9, 2002, during the crucial debate about whether to authorize Bush to go to war against Iraq, and said, according to the Congressional Record (search under 107th Congress), that the 9-11 attack "was delivered by depraved men."
Two quick questions: Was the Pakistani general too depraved to have another cinnamon roll that morning? Or was he just full?
Goss also said on October 9, 2002:
Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and their radical ilk are at the epicenter of terrorist activity in the Middle East. Nobody doubts that. It is not debatable. President Bush, Prime Minister Blair and others have made convincing cases about the threats the despotic Iraqi regime poses to world peace and stability today—today as well as tomorrow.
And he added:
Iraq has expanded its weapons of mass destruction capabilities against its pledge not to. It still has deadly chemical weapons hidden throughout the country, and it has tried to develop nuclear devices as well. It is certain that Iraq has ties to many Islamic terror groups in the region, including Al Qaeda. Evidence supports Iraq's involvement in the first and probably the second World Trade Center bombing.
So, let's see: Goss, a former CIA agent, ignored studying something that did happen—his breakfast with the bagman of a 9-11 hijacker—while strongly pushing for a war based on a "threat" to our security that didn't exist.
Sure, let's make him CIA director. What the hell. He's been an effective stonewaller and excuse-maker ever since 9-11.
"No smoking gun," he said in 2002, when the Goss-Graham report was released.
It's "not about blame," he said in 2003. Here's his full quote from that rare public hearing of his House panel on 9-11 investigations, as reported by PBS at the time: "None of remarks we're talking about, nor any of history, and this certainly carries over to the 9-11 review, it's not about blame. This is about better protecting the United States of America in the world as it is today."
Keep this in mind: Since 9-11, various probes have found that the hijackers and other Al Qaeda operatives were constantly coming and going through Pakistan before the fateful day.
In the Goss-Graham report, you'll find Pakistan all over the 858 pages, but not a crumb from the 9-11 breakfast. What was talked about? Why was Pakistan's version of a CIA-FBI director in D.C. at that time? Who knew what? And when?
At the time of the attacks, the U.S. had a complex and rocky relationship with Pakistan. During the Reagan era, the U.S. helped finance and arm Arab militants so they could drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. It's common knowledge that neighboring Pakistan was the base for those militants. And the agency Ahmad ran, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), was often on friendly terms with the Taliban and other Arab militants but on shaky terms with the U.S.
Judge for yourself who's smoking what by going to the Center for Cooperative Research's unparalleled website of heavily annotated 9-11 timelines and essays. Search "Goss" and see what comes up.
The best analysis of this naggingly curious breakfast is perhaps this piece by Michel Chossudovsky, director of the Centre for Research on Globalization, a Canadian outfit that boldly goes where most other probers don't.
It's more interesting than the congressional report produced by Goss and Graham. Or is it? Would you like an after-meal HUMINT?
posted: august 10th at 6:04 pm
Use this link to put the rss feed from this blog on your site: http://passgo.blogspot.com/atom.xml
Thursday, August 12, 2004
Keyes Becomes Hypocrite
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5904855&src=eDialog/GetContent§ion=news
Is Alan Keyes giving in to a desire for power? Has he succombed to the power of the Republican National Committee? One has to wonder after the man who once criticized Hillary Clinton for moving to New York to run for the U.S. Senate will now have to make a similar move to Illinois before Election Day in November in order to challenge Democratic candidate Barack Obama for the Senate seat being vacated by Peter Fitzgerald.
Will the Republicans never cease to amaze us with the audacity of their hypocrisy, the boldness of their lies and the brashness of their self-rightousness? How do you come to a place where accusations are so easily assailed upon others with no consideration for how they will be turned back on one's own head? Is it the cameras in the face and the microphones at the mouth that cause the receiver of such attention to believe that somehow the words from his or her mouth set the standards for morality, philosophy, economy, policy, etc. until said person changes his or her mind?
Keyes had impressed me and many other Libertarians with his talk of small government and individual liberties during his bid to become the Republican candidate for President in 2000. However, Mr. Keyes has slipped far away from those ideas since that campaign. His new friends and contacts have made him part of the "political machine," and he can flip-flop on issues like the best of those in Washington, D.C. He is an attentive student of that "machine." I am certain that he and his teachers are proud of his ability to tow the political line.
Use this link to put the rss feed from this blog on your site: http://passgo.blogspot.com/atom.xml
Is Alan Keyes giving in to a desire for power? Has he succombed to the power of the Republican National Committee? One has to wonder after the man who once criticized Hillary Clinton for moving to New York to run for the U.S. Senate will now have to make a similar move to Illinois before Election Day in November in order to challenge Democratic candidate Barack Obama for the Senate seat being vacated by Peter Fitzgerald.
Will the Republicans never cease to amaze us with the audacity of their hypocrisy, the boldness of their lies and the brashness of their self-rightousness? How do you come to a place where accusations are so easily assailed upon others with no consideration for how they will be turned back on one's own head? Is it the cameras in the face and the microphones at the mouth that cause the receiver of such attention to believe that somehow the words from his or her mouth set the standards for morality, philosophy, economy, policy, etc. until said person changes his or her mind?
Keyes had impressed me and many other Libertarians with his talk of small government and individual liberties during his bid to become the Republican candidate for President in 2000. However, Mr. Keyes has slipped far away from those ideas since that campaign. His new friends and contacts have made him part of the "political machine," and he can flip-flop on issues like the best of those in Washington, D.C. He is an attentive student of that "machine." I am certain that he and his teachers are proud of his ability to tow the political line.
Use this link to put the rss feed from this blog on your site: http://passgo.blogspot.com/atom.xml
Thursday, July 22, 2004
BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
BBC NEWS World Middle East Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
Oh, my sleepwalking friends... WAKE UP!!!
They're ALIVE! The supposed hi-jackers of September 11, 2001. They are alive! The United States government is perpetrating a massive cover-up of the actual events of that fateful day. Do you want to know what really happened that day?? Do you really care? DO YOU?!? Then, READ - stop being OUTFOXED and start reading. Don't trust "alternative new" sources? Well, then surely you trust your buddies at the BBC.
If you are willing to look at alternative news sources, then I recommend the following:
Alternet.org
They do an excellent job of reporting what they corporate news agencies miss. They are more left-leaning than I care for, but I'm looking for the truth, so I just filter out the opinion.
Truthout
Probably the most honest, well written, online news journal on the Internet. I have yet to be disappointed by this site.
Prisonplanet.com
For the braver souls among you there is Alex Jones' PrisonPlanet.com. Alex addresses some truly alternative viewpoints on current events. If you keep your eyes and ears open, I promise you will learn some interesting facts.
Oh, my sleepwalking friends... WAKE UP!!!
They're ALIVE! The supposed hi-jackers of September 11, 2001. They are alive! The United States government is perpetrating a massive cover-up of the actual events of that fateful day. Do you want to know what really happened that day?? Do you really care? DO YOU?!? Then, READ - stop being OUTFOXED and start reading. Don't trust "alternative new" sources? Well, then surely you trust your buddies at the BBC.
If you are willing to look at alternative news sources, then I recommend the following:
Alternet.org
They do an excellent job of reporting what they corporate news agencies miss. They are more left-leaning than I care for, but I'm looking for the truth, so I just filter out the opinion.
Truthout
Probably the most honest, well written, online news journal on the Internet. I have yet to be disappointed by this site.
Prisonplanet.com
For the braver souls among you there is Alex Jones' PrisonPlanet.com. Alex addresses some truly alternative viewpoints on current events. If you keep your eyes and ears open, I promise you will learn some interesting facts.
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
The New York Times > Washington > Legal Opinions: Lawyers Decided Bans on Torture Didn't Bind Bush
The New York Times > Washington > Legal Opinions: Lawyers Decided Bans on Torture Didn't Bind Bush
Just more proof, folks, that this president needs to be voted out.
Just more proof, folks, that this president needs to be voted out.
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
KR Washington Bureau
KR Washington Bureau
Hello, again, all you sleepwalkers! After a long battle with my excess cerebral spinal fluid, I now have a piece of metal implanted in my head. (It probably has a some kind of tracking hardware in it, so the Feds can keep tabs on me 8-) ). Oh well, at least my mind is still my own and I can still see through the lies being thrown around by the Bush Administration.
So, what do you make of this one? "The Bush administration helped rally public and congressional support for a preemptive invasion of Iraq by publicizing the claims of an Iraqi defector months after he showed deception in a lie detector test and had been rejected as reliable by the U.S. intelligence agencies."
Ok, so, here we have a known liar being used by the Bushies as a source of information proving the need for us to go to war with Iraq. You know... I know I have a thick skull. I have the MRIs to prove it, but my skull can't be half as thick as that of you sleepwalkers out there. Does President Bush himself have to come into your living room and tell you directly that he is a liar before you can see it? Seriously... what does it take for you to pay attention? Does Cheney have to sleep with your daughter? Does the CIA have kidnap your son? WHAT?!?!!! If it weren't such a crime, it would be laughable.
Really, don't you think it's time to wake up? For the sake of your family and your country... please wake up.
For more info... check out this story:
Surrender, Judith Miller
Hello, again, all you sleepwalkers! After a long battle with my excess cerebral spinal fluid, I now have a piece of metal implanted in my head. (It probably has a some kind of tracking hardware in it, so the Feds can keep tabs on me 8-) ). Oh well, at least my mind is still my own and I can still see through the lies being thrown around by the Bush Administration.
So, what do you make of this one? "The Bush administration helped rally public and congressional support for a preemptive invasion of Iraq by publicizing the claims of an Iraqi defector months after he showed deception in a lie detector test and had been rejected as reliable by the U.S. intelligence agencies."
Ok, so, here we have a known liar being used by the Bushies as a source of information proving the need for us to go to war with Iraq. You know... I know I have a thick skull. I have the MRIs to prove it, but my skull can't be half as thick as that of you sleepwalkers out there. Does President Bush himself have to come into your living room and tell you directly that he is a liar before you can see it? Seriously... what does it take for you to pay attention? Does Cheney have to sleep with your daughter? Does the CIA have kidnap your son? WHAT?!?!!! If it weren't such a crime, it would be laughable.
Really, don't you think it's time to wake up? For the sake of your family and your country... please wake up.
For more info... check out this story:
Surrender, Judith Miller
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
t r u t h o u t - Will the Election Be Hacked?
Use this link to put the rss feed from this blog on your site: http://passgo.blogspot.com/atom.xml
Will Bush Steal Another Election?
You had better plan on getting an absentee ballot if you want your vote against George W. Bush to be counted in this year's election. No joke. If your county will be using the new voting machines, you need to make a fuss and vote by absentee ballot. Please read the above referenced article.
Will Bush Steal Another Election?
You had better plan on getting an absentee ballot if you want your vote against George W. Bush to be counted in this year's election. No joke. If your county will be using the new voting machines, you need to make a fuss and vote by absentee ballot. Please read the above referenced article.
Where Are The Advertisers?
Is it just on my computer? When I look at my published blog, there are never any advertisements in the open space beside Blogspot's logo to the left of the banner ad at the top. There is only a very small link below the ad area that says, "Searches by Google." Do you think maybe that companies are afraid to advertise on my blog? If you are reading this, please tell me what you see in the banner area at the top of the blog by sending an email to diffie1@yahoo.com. Thanks.
And the Doors to Free Speech Just Continue to Be Slammed Shut!
This statement was put out by the Marijuana Policy Project.
The IRS and FEC are considering rulings that could severely restrict the free speech rights of the Drug Policy Alliance and other issue advocacy groups. The proposed rulings are vague in that they do not clearly state exactly which communications would be illegal. This means that the federal government could selectively enforce the rules in order to clamp down on any speech or advertising it does not approve of or considers politically threatening. Even though the Drug Policy Alliance does not endorse or oppose specific candidates for public office, the proposed IRS and FEC actions could hamper our efforts to contact fellow reformers like you about candidates’ stances on drug policy reform issues during election campaigns. Any member of Congress up for re-election could be able to push their legislation into law without hearing the voice of the American people.
The IRS ruling (Revenue Ruling 2004-6) could penalize drug policy reform and other nonprofit organizations that are publicly critical of any elected official who is running for re-election. Non-profit educational organizations like the Drug Policy Alliance cannot work to defeat or support federal candidates, but can educate voters on where politicians stand on certain issues. So long as the Alliance and other organizations do not explicitly call for the defeat or re-election of a politician we do not run afoul of the law. However, Revenue Ruling 2004-6 muddies these regulations to make it illegal for advocacy group to do anything that the IRS determines to be an attempt at defeat or support a candidate for federal office. The change appears minor but in fact makes the regulations more vague, giving the IRS a wide scope to call many advocacy-group actions illegal.
Read the complex IRS ruling.
The FEC ruling (Advisory Opinion 2003-37) could prohibit the Alliance and other organizations from communicating any message - through e-mails, newspaper ads, television commercials or brochures - that “promotes, supports, attacks, or opposes” any candidate for federal office. It does this by re-defining the definition of a “campaign expenditure” to include communications that promote or attack federal candidates. Because the Alliance and similar non-profits are prohibited under existing law from making campaign expenditures, this ruling could make it illegal for us to send you e-mails criticizing the actions of a Member of Congress if they also happen to be running for re-election. Even sending you an e-mail saying that your Senator just voted the wrong way on a bill could become illegal. For instance, Senator Biden first introduced his controversial RAVE Act just a few months before the 2002 elections. Because he was up for re-election that year, it may have been illegal for the Alliance to alert you to the bill had the FEC and IRS rulings been in place then.
Read the complex FEC ruling.
An essential part of the Alliance’s work is to keep fellow reformers informed about the actions and votes of elected officials - whether a move by President Bush to crack down on medical marijuana or a Congressman’s bill to mandate student drug testing. These proposals could severely limit our ability to do this and work to reform America’s ‘War on Drugs’.
Contact your Congressperson and Senator to stop this immediately.
The IRS and FEC are considering rulings that could severely restrict the free speech rights of the Drug Policy Alliance and other issue advocacy groups. The proposed rulings are vague in that they do not clearly state exactly which communications would be illegal. This means that the federal government could selectively enforce the rules in order to clamp down on any speech or advertising it does not approve of or considers politically threatening. Even though the Drug Policy Alliance does not endorse or oppose specific candidates for public office, the proposed IRS and FEC actions could hamper our efforts to contact fellow reformers like you about candidates’ stances on drug policy reform issues during election campaigns. Any member of Congress up for re-election could be able to push their legislation into law without hearing the voice of the American people.
The IRS ruling (Revenue Ruling 2004-6) could penalize drug policy reform and other nonprofit organizations that are publicly critical of any elected official who is running for re-election. Non-profit educational organizations like the Drug Policy Alliance cannot work to defeat or support federal candidates, but can educate voters on where politicians stand on certain issues. So long as the Alliance and other organizations do not explicitly call for the defeat or re-election of a politician we do not run afoul of the law. However, Revenue Ruling 2004-6 muddies these regulations to make it illegal for advocacy group to do anything that the IRS determines to be an attempt at defeat or support a candidate for federal office. The change appears minor but in fact makes the regulations more vague, giving the IRS a wide scope to call many advocacy-group actions illegal.
Read the complex IRS ruling.
The FEC ruling (Advisory Opinion 2003-37) could prohibit the Alliance and other organizations from communicating any message - through e-mails, newspaper ads, television commercials or brochures - that “promotes, supports, attacks, or opposes” any candidate for federal office. It does this by re-defining the definition of a “campaign expenditure” to include communications that promote or attack federal candidates. Because the Alliance and similar non-profits are prohibited under existing law from making campaign expenditures, this ruling could make it illegal for us to send you e-mails criticizing the actions of a Member of Congress if they also happen to be running for re-election. Even sending you an e-mail saying that your Senator just voted the wrong way on a bill could become illegal. For instance, Senator Biden first introduced his controversial RAVE Act just a few months before the 2002 elections. Because he was up for re-election that year, it may have been illegal for the Alliance to alert you to the bill had the FEC and IRS rulings been in place then.
Read the complex FEC ruling.
An essential part of the Alliance’s work is to keep fellow reformers informed about the actions and votes of elected officials - whether a move by President Bush to crack down on medical marijuana or a Congressman’s bill to mandate student drug testing. These proposals could severely limit our ability to do this and work to reform America’s ‘War on Drugs’.
Contact your Congressperson and Senator to stop this immediately.
Bush's Missing Year... Are We Surprised?
From the above referenced article:
Hmmmm, and this:
Ok, so here have some familiar language coming from the Whitehouse stating that if you request the president to release his records of military service, then you are committing a "slanderous attack" and "character assassination." We are also to condemn everyone who requests the president to release such information. Or what? You'll be considered an Enemy of the State, a terrorist? It seems to me that this president is assassinating his own character.
If an Air National guardsman today vanished for a year, military attorneys say that guardsman would be transferred to active duty or, more likely, kicked out of the service, probably with a less-than-honorable discharge. They suggest the penalty would be especially swift if the absent-without-leave guardsman were a fully trained pilot, as Bush was.
Hmmmm, and this:
Democrats have seized on the story of Bush's "missing year," which was first raised in a 2000 Boston Globe article. This week Democratic front-runner Sen. John Kerry called on Bush to give a fuller explanation of his service record. That brought an outraged response from Bush-Cheney '04 chairman Marc Racicot, who denounced Kerry's request as a "slanderous attack" and "character assassination." White House spokesman Scott McClellan also tried to slam the door on the subject, declaiming that Democratic questions about Bush's military service "have no place in politics and everyone should condemn them."
In a sign that the Bush team is taking the issue seriously, on Wednesday Bush's campaign spokesman questioned the integrity of the retired Guard commander who claims Bush failed to show for duty in 1972, citing the commander's recent donation to a Democratic candidate for president.
Ok, so here have some familiar language coming from the Whitehouse stating that if you request the president to release his records of military service, then you are committing a "slanderous attack" and "character assassination." We are also to condemn everyone who requests the president to release such information. Or what? You'll be considered an Enemy of the State, a terrorist? It seems to me that this president is assassinating his own character.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
