The death penalty, an issue of contention among many people, has just been repealed by the New Jersey state senate. This is a pretty big move, since no state has done this since before the 1976 ruling of the supreme court. Now I know lots of people aren't going to agree with me, but I think the death penalty should be abolished completely. The criminal justice system is supposed to punish and rehabilitate prisoners and give justice to the victims and their families. The death penalty fufills just one of those requirements. It does not rehabilitate because, well they are dead, it does not give justice, it gives vengence, and even the punishment is questionable, (does the state really have the right to kill people?). To quote someone's bumper sticker, "why does the government kill people to show us that it is wrong to kill people."
Here is a list of countries with the death penalty:
Afghanistan
Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belize
Botswana
Burundi
Cameroon
Chad
China (People's Republic)
Comoros
Congo (Democratic Republic)
Cuba
Dominica
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Ghana
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Korea, North
Korea, South
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Lebanon
Lesotho
Libya
Malawi
Malaysia
Mongolia
Nigeria
Oman
Pakistan
Palestinian Authority
Qatar
Rwanda
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Saudi Arabia
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Somalia
Sudan
Swaziland
Syria
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
United States
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Should the US really be on the a list with iraq, iran, and north korea? I thought we didn't like them....
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
The Administration that cried Nuclear Weapons
The Time: 2003
The Issue: Iraq
administration: hey guys we are positive that there are WMD's in Iraq we even have pictures, oh yeah and they have terrorist connections and were involved in September 11th
The country and congress: OK war it is
a bit after:
administration: uh guys we might have been a tiny bit off about the whole WMD thing...there sort of weren't any...
the country and congress: oh its ok do better next time!!
The time: 2005
The Issue: Iran
the administration: we are highly confident, bassed on good intelligence, that Iran is actively pursuing the nuclear bomb... They must be stopped.
the country: are you sure
the administration: oh yes definitely you can trust us...
the country: ok
The time: 2007
The Issue: Iran
the administration: we were wrong again....they shut down their nuclear program in 2003, there only working with nuclear power now, they aren't ever working on the bomb
the country: you suck please leave now
So the point of that was to illustrate that time and time agian this country has been lied to by this administration. Everytime they have intelligence they are highly confident that it is correct, and then about two years later, once they have done something stupid they come back saying that they might have been wrong. I'm sorry but this is the Administration that cried Nuclear Weapons, the allies and citizens kept running every time they shouted for help. However, now everyone realizes the truth, at the worst they are liars (trying to con the nation into as many wars as possible) and at the best they are incompetent idiots who do not deserve their jobs.
The Issue: Iraq
administration: hey guys we are positive that there are WMD's in Iraq we even have pictures, oh yeah and they have terrorist connections and were involved in September 11th
The country and congress: OK war it is
a bit after:
administration: uh guys we might have been a tiny bit off about the whole WMD thing...there sort of weren't any...
the country and congress: oh its ok do better next time!!
The time: 2005
The Issue: Iran
the administration: we are highly confident, bassed on good intelligence, that Iran is actively pursuing the nuclear bomb... They must be stopped.
the country: are you sure
the administration: oh yes definitely you can trust us...
the country: ok
The time: 2007
The Issue: Iran
the administration: we were wrong again....they shut down their nuclear program in 2003, there only working with nuclear power now, they aren't ever working on the bomb
the country: you suck please leave now
So the point of that was to illustrate that time and time agian this country has been lied to by this administration. Everytime they have intelligence they are highly confident that it is correct, and then about two years later, once they have done something stupid they come back saying that they might have been wrong. I'm sorry but this is the Administration that cried Nuclear Weapons, the allies and citizens kept running every time they shouted for help. However, now everyone realizes the truth, at the worst they are liars (trying to con the nation into as many wars as possible) and at the best they are incompetent idiots who do not deserve their jobs.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Suspended for saying Noose??? seriously
So after the Jena six fiasco many people have been on edge about issues of race. There have been a few other issues that have to do with a noose that have been discussed on the news. One was at a college where a set up meant to promote tolerance was vandalized with a noose painted orange hanging on it. The other was when kids in the band were suspended for talking about a noose.
"There's apparently been some racial tension in the band at Lee's Summit West, specifically on the drum line. Students were talked to a couple weeks ago because both the black and white kids were using the "n word" and the band director told them to stop. But then talk about a noose landed a couple kids in big trouble.
Travis Grigsby loves playing drums, but he and his friend Alex Coday weren't able to play for two weeks after they were suspended. It started after the band's performance at a football game. Some kids on the drum line said they were talking about the best knots to use to tie up the drum equipment.
"Someone asked if anybody knew how to tie a noose and Travis did admit he knew how to tie a noose," Kim Grigsby said.
Travis' mom said her son is almost an Eagle Scout, he knew how to tie it, but told his friends he wouldn't because you could get in trouble for that. Later, a black student on the drum line told the teacher he was offended.
"Travis was accused of using a racial slur for saying the word 'noose.' Then he was suspended for 10 days," Kim said."
Now the in the Jena six incident and the incident at the college I can understand how people would be upset and offended however, when someone is suspended for saying noose, I believe that people have gone to far. People are trying so hard not to offend anyone that they are encroaching on free speech rights. Now I don't deny that the students were stupid to discuss the noose especially when racial tensions were high at their school, but they do not deserve to be suspended for it.
"There's apparently been some racial tension in the band at Lee's Summit West, specifically on the drum line. Students were talked to a couple weeks ago because both the black and white kids were using the "n word" and the band director told them to stop. But then talk about a noose landed a couple kids in big trouble.
Travis Grigsby loves playing drums, but he and his friend Alex Coday weren't able to play for two weeks after they were suspended. It started after the band's performance at a football game. Some kids on the drum line said they were talking about the best knots to use to tie up the drum equipment.
"Someone asked if anybody knew how to tie a noose and Travis did admit he knew how to tie a noose," Kim Grigsby said.
Travis' mom said her son is almost an Eagle Scout, he knew how to tie it, but told his friends he wouldn't because you could get in trouble for that. Later, a black student on the drum line told the teacher he was offended.
"Travis was accused of using a racial slur for saying the word 'noose.' Then he was suspended for 10 days," Kim said."
Now the in the Jena six incident and the incident at the college I can understand how people would be upset and offended however, when someone is suspended for saying noose, I believe that people have gone to far. People are trying so hard not to offend anyone that they are encroaching on free speech rights. Now I don't deny that the students were stupid to discuss the noose especially when racial tensions were high at their school, but they do not deserve to be suspended for it.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Sicko
So I know I'm a bit late on the up take but I just saw "Sicko" this weekend and I loved it.
This movie takes a hard look at the state of the American Health Care System and compares it to the systems in Canada, Cuba, England, and France. In England, the doctors get paid more if their patients are healthier and when you leave the hospital instead of getting slapped with a bill you are given money for transportation. In Canada the people are so afraid of the insurance situation in the U.S. that they actually buy insurance when they go to the U.S. for one day. And in France all people get 5 paid weeks of vacation a year, one more week if you get married (for the honeymoon), a day if you move, and 6 months paid off time if you are pregnant. France was pretty much ridiculously awesome. Now I might have expected the United States to be in worse shape then Canada, England, and France but Cuba seriously? It was ridiculous that 9/11 volunteers were able to get better care in Cuba then they could at home. An inhaler that costs 120 dollars in the U.S. were 5 cents in Cuba.
But the most astounding place of all was Norway. Norway wasn't in the film, but it was in the special features and wow, I want to live there because it sounds amazing. Norway gives pregnant women one year off, their police don't carry guns, they only use the surplus of their oil reserves so that future generations still have resources, they have found a way to use sewage to heat their homes (its not as gross as it sounds), and they have the lowest murder rate in the world. Yeah, so Norway basically owns on all fronts (and I know alot of that wasn't about their health care system but its awesome as well). These other countries are putting the U.S. to shame in taking care of their own citizens. The U.S. needs to take a hard look at the way its treating its citizens, both large, 9/11 heroes, and small, the poor. Then maybe we can consider that other countries have found a more successful way of handling health care and for once we can get off our high horse and follow their lead.
This movie takes a hard look at the state of the American Health Care System and compares it to the systems in Canada, Cuba, England, and France. In England, the doctors get paid more if their patients are healthier and when you leave the hospital instead of getting slapped with a bill you are given money for transportation. In Canada the people are so afraid of the insurance situation in the U.S. that they actually buy insurance when they go to the U.S. for one day. And in France all people get 5 paid weeks of vacation a year, one more week if you get married (for the honeymoon), a day if you move, and 6 months paid off time if you are pregnant. France was pretty much ridiculously awesome. Now I might have expected the United States to be in worse shape then Canada, England, and France but Cuba seriously? It was ridiculous that 9/11 volunteers were able to get better care in Cuba then they could at home. An inhaler that costs 120 dollars in the U.S. were 5 cents in Cuba.
But the most astounding place of all was Norway. Norway wasn't in the film, but it was in the special features and wow, I want to live there because it sounds amazing. Norway gives pregnant women one year off, their police don't carry guns, they only use the surplus of their oil reserves so that future generations still have resources, they have found a way to use sewage to heat their homes (its not as gross as it sounds), and they have the lowest murder rate in the world. Yeah, so Norway basically owns on all fronts (and I know alot of that wasn't about their health care system but its awesome as well). These other countries are putting the U.S. to shame in taking care of their own citizens. The U.S. needs to take a hard look at the way its treating its citizens, both large, 9/11 heroes, and small, the poor. Then maybe we can consider that other countries have found a more successful way of handling health care and for once we can get off our high horse and follow their lead.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Heroes Save the Whales....well they try
The Water, normally a beautiful blue, is turned red by the blood of the innocent animals. A group of 7 surfers sit on the rocks some with their heads in their hands, and others literally shaking with tears. An angry japanese fisherman yells what are probably obscenities at a news camera filming every second of the horrific event.
This was the scene in a small fishing town on the coast of japan, where Heroes star Hayden Panettiere and a group of surfers attempted to stop the slaughter of dolphins by japanese fishermen. She and the others paddled out on their boards attempting to some how help the animals whose blood had not yet been spilled. However the fishermen would have none of it, they used the propellers of their boats and long prods to fend of the surfers until the group finally had to leave or be arrested.
Now I am not really an animal rights person, I eat meat and think that testing on animals when done in order to learn is acceptable. However this display was disgusting, this was unnecessary cruelty to these intelligent animals and something needs to be done about it. There must be some other way for these fishermen to make there living, some more human and acceptable fashion to kill the dolphins. I am not even saying that they should stop killing the dolphins, if that is the only way that they have to make there living then I am in no position to judge them. However herding the dolphins to their death, taking large spear like objects and slicing them and spilling so much blood that the water turns red is no way to do this.
sources:
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20157993,00.html
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=843_1193927344
This was the scene in a small fishing town on the coast of japan, where Heroes star Hayden Panettiere and a group of surfers attempted to stop the slaughter of dolphins by japanese fishermen. She and the others paddled out on their boards attempting to some how help the animals whose blood had not yet been spilled. However the fishermen would have none of it, they used the propellers of their boats and long prods to fend of the surfers until the group finally had to leave or be arrested.
Now I am not really an animal rights person, I eat meat and think that testing on animals when done in order to learn is acceptable. However this display was disgusting, this was unnecessary cruelty to these intelligent animals and something needs to be done about it. There must be some other way for these fishermen to make there living, some more human and acceptable fashion to kill the dolphins. I am not even saying that they should stop killing the dolphins, if that is the only way that they have to make there living then I am in no position to judge them. However herding the dolphins to their death, taking large spear like objects and slicing them and spilling so much blood that the water turns red is no way to do this.
sources:
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20157993,00.html
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=843_1193927344
Friday, October 26, 2007
Politics are depressing
The Republican Debate on Fox News, sure to be a true meeting of the minds. Who will come out on top, will Guiliani keep his lead, will Romney catch up, will Mccain make a comback? All of this excitement and then the Debate aired, and I think I lost IQ points listening to these intelligent grown men spew inane babble that didnt pertain to the issues what so ever.
The entire debate was a "Who is more conservative" challenge, in fact the first 3 or 4 questions were "Who is more conservative you or the other rich white guy at a podium?"
I am obviously liberal but I respect the positions of the conservatives, when Huckabee argued for pro-life his argument was well thought out, passionate, and persuasive to some extent. I have no problem with political candidates of either side when they talk about their thoughts on the issues.
But this debate contained 15% issue and 85% nonsense.
Guiliani mentioned his ability to reduce crime in New York about 10 times in the first 3 questions he was asked (and September 11 got thrown in there too).
Romney name dropped Reagan, the hero of the conservatives, so many times you would have thought Reagan was a Candidate.
Fred Thompson made jokes about the other candidates and avoided having to take a stand on anything.
Huckabee and Paul actually talked about the issues of importance but they have absolutely no chance of winning.
And the other 2, Tancredo and Hunter, barely spoke. (Romney and Guiliani spoke about 2000+ words while they spoke under 1000).
And all of them tried to make Hilary Clinton out to be the anti-christ.
My point is not to bash the Republicans because they aren't the only ones at fault, the Democrats avoid the issues as well, when they have a debate I will most likely bash them too.
If I was going to be of voting age by the next election I would have absolutely not idea who to vote for. The candidates seem fake, inexperienced, or just ridiculous.
Well I guess I'll just have to wait for the 2012 elections, god that sounds pathetic.
The entire debate was a "Who is more conservative" challenge, in fact the first 3 or 4 questions were "Who is more conservative you or the other rich white guy at a podium?"
I am obviously liberal but I respect the positions of the conservatives, when Huckabee argued for pro-life his argument was well thought out, passionate, and persuasive to some extent. I have no problem with political candidates of either side when they talk about their thoughts on the issues.
But this debate contained 15% issue and 85% nonsense.
Guiliani mentioned his ability to reduce crime in New York about 10 times in the first 3 questions he was asked (and September 11 got thrown in there too).
Romney name dropped Reagan, the hero of the conservatives, so many times you would have thought Reagan was a Candidate.
Fred Thompson made jokes about the other candidates and avoided having to take a stand on anything.
Huckabee and Paul actually talked about the issues of importance but they have absolutely no chance of winning.
And the other 2, Tancredo and Hunter, barely spoke. (Romney and Guiliani spoke about 2000+ words while they spoke under 1000).
And all of them tried to make Hilary Clinton out to be the anti-christ.
My point is not to bash the Republicans because they aren't the only ones at fault, the Democrats avoid the issues as well, when they have a debate I will most likely bash them too.
If I was going to be of voting age by the next election I would have absolutely not idea who to vote for. The candidates seem fake, inexperienced, or just ridiculous.
Well I guess I'll just have to wait for the 2012 elections, god that sounds pathetic.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Colbert for President??
Stephen Colbert announced on his show the other night that he is running for president,......in South Carolina. Well, I'm not really a Hilary Clinton fan (the upside is that at least if she did get elected Bill would be there to help), Obama seems too inexperienced to have a chance, Edwards is too far behind in the polls, and the republican candidates are, at least to me, pretty much laughable. I would love to have a President Colbert, or a President Stewart. I know this is not ever going to happen, but these two comedians are in my eyes more honest, less tainted by politics, and more willing to confront problems than any of the current candidates. Perhaps the front runners should take a leaf out of the Colbert/Stewart play book and stop side stepping tough issues, stop playing on 9/11 (Rudy Giuliani), stop trying to keep the presidential records out of the public's reach ( Hilary Clinton), and start being more honest, in the end I think it would do us all some good.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
National Secrets?...What National Secrets?
A man is taken off a plane, held in a secret prison for months, kept away from his family who are not even told what he did wrong....what will happen next??? This scenario may sound like its from the new movie "Rendition" with Reese Witherspoon and Jake Gyllenhaal, but its not. This is the real life story of Khaled el-Masri a German citizen who was allegedly taken to Afghanistan by members of the C.I.A. and kept there for 5 months in a secret prison, where he was tortured because his name is similar to that of a suspected terrorist.
Mr. Masri was eventually released but when he tried to file charges against the C.I.A. his case and subsequent appeals were turned down because of "state secret privilege." Now you may be asking yourself..."What is a state secret privilege?" Well it was first ruled by the supreme court in U.S. vs. Reynolds when if documents relating to a plane crash were given as evidence in trial it would put into jeopardy certain aspects of the military. The idea is to stop evidence in a trial from harming military or national (legitimate and legal) secrets. However in the case of Mr. Masri the "state secret privilege" was not used to rule out some evidence in the extremely controversial and possibly bad for the government case, it actually caused the case to be thrown out all together.
"Mr. Masri’s lawyers argued that this decision, which the court has occasionally invoked but has not revisited, did not justify dismissing a case before any evidence was requested. Ben Wizner, Mr. Masri’s lawyer at the civil liberties union, said in an interview that the courts have permitted the doctrine to evolve from an evidentiary privilege to a broad grant of immunity, a way for the executive branch to shield itself from judicial scrutiny." (the new york times)
Hmm... shielding the executive branch from judicial procedure where have i heard that before....oh yeah "executive privilege" called upon when ever President Bush doesn't want to give up his many secrets...and didn't Dick Cheney try to claim he was neither part of the Executive or the Legislative Branch, and so he could not be subject to the protocol of either? Yes, if my memory serves me, I think he did.
Well Mr. Masri may never get justice but at least we can all sleep soundly knowing our government is oh so awesome at keeping its secrets (prisons, torture, wire tapping) safe from any prying journalistic or judicial eyes. Ahhh Im so relieved.
sources: The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/washington/09cnd-scotus.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Mr. Masri was eventually released but when he tried to file charges against the C.I.A. his case and subsequent appeals were turned down because of "state secret privilege." Now you may be asking yourself..."What is a state secret privilege?" Well it was first ruled by the supreme court in U.S. vs. Reynolds when if documents relating to a plane crash were given as evidence in trial it would put into jeopardy certain aspects of the military. The idea is to stop evidence in a trial from harming military or national (legitimate and legal) secrets. However in the case of Mr. Masri the "state secret privilege" was not used to rule out some evidence in the extremely controversial and possibly bad for the government case, it actually caused the case to be thrown out all together.
"Mr. Masri’s lawyers argued that this decision, which the court has occasionally invoked but has not revisited, did not justify dismissing a case before any evidence was requested. Ben Wizner, Mr. Masri’s lawyer at the civil liberties union, said in an interview that the courts have permitted the doctrine to evolve from an evidentiary privilege to a broad grant of immunity, a way for the executive branch to shield itself from judicial scrutiny." (the new york times)
Hmm... shielding the executive branch from judicial procedure where have i heard that before....oh yeah "executive privilege" called upon when ever President Bush doesn't want to give up his many secrets...and didn't Dick Cheney try to claim he was neither part of the Executive or the Legislative Branch, and so he could not be subject to the protocol of either? Yes, if my memory serves me, I think he did.
Well Mr. Masri may never get justice but at least we can all sleep soundly knowing our government is oh so awesome at keeping its secrets (prisons, torture, wire tapping) safe from any prying journalistic or judicial eyes. Ahhh Im so relieved.
sources: The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/washington/09cnd-scotus.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Saturday, September 29, 2007
sources
The New York times online http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/28/us/politics/28obama.html
The Daily Show
The Daily Show
Friday, September 28, 2007
4th post
The President walks to the podium, hugging the children and posing for photos, and he gets ready to speak in defense of his education policy. All of the members of the press are ready to record another one of his eloquent speeches. But none of them could have been ready for this, the President, surrounded by children says, "Childrens do learn when standards are high..." What????? I really did not think it was possible for me to respect this president any less, but ladies and gentlemen it just happened. Childrens do learn.... to quote Jon Stewart, "oh does they???" It’s just too perfect that the President makes a grammar mistake defending his education policy, standing next to children, who all probably could have said that sentence correctly. It’s just pathetic.
3rd Post
Obama, he seems to many to be a symbol of hope for the future. His address at the Democratic convention made him something of a celebrity, his books have been huge sellers, and he gained the endorsement of Oprah, something no one thought possible. While giving a speech in New York, to one of the biggest crowds of this campaign season, Obama attempeted to seperate himself from his Democratic counter parts. He said, “There were folks on the stage [at the democratic debate] that said Social Security is just fine, we don’t have to do anything about it...There are those who will tell you that getting out of Iraq will be painless, we’ll do it in a snap, not acknowledging that there are no good options in Iraq. There are folks who will shift positions and policies on all kinds of things depending on which way the wind is blowing. That’s not the kind of politics that will deliver on the change we are looking for." I am not sure who I am supporting in the Presidential race, that is mostly because I will not be able to vote when it comes around but I think I do agree with Obama on this point. Politicians often times avoid the problems because they want votes. They promise tax cuts when in reality the only way to keep social security is a raise in taxes. They promise a swift withdrawl and speedy recovery from Iraq when in reality the current administration has screwed up this war so much that there are no swift or speedy ways out. Obama is not trying to gloss over the issues. He is confronting them and admiting that solving them will be dificult. Even if he is not the symbol of hope that everyone has been trying to make him out to be, at least he is honest.
Friday, September 21, 2007
2nd post
So the Jena six are on trial in Louisiana and we of course discussed it in our amazing AP Gov class. This led to the discussion of free speech. How far should free speech be allowed to go? Is burning a cross or hanging a noose simply an expression of free speech or is it something that should be banned. My thoughts are that it is impossible to put a blanket ban over something like hanging a noose from a tree because that would be infringing on peoples rights. I think it totally depends on the context. In the case of the Jena six the noose was meant to threaten the black students at the high school, in particular, the student who sat under the tree the previous day. A total ban on things such as nooses would lead, in my opinion, to more controversial issues such as banning the swastika or the confederate flag, as those are also symbols of horrible atrocities to certain groups of people. The Jena six is a case about racism, but it brings up many other important issues, especialy the issue of free speech, which is going to need to be addressed before an even worse case comes up.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
sources
my sources for the quotes in the previous blog are:
The New York Times online
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Bush-Text.html
The New York Times online
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Bush-Text.html
1st post 9/13
Tonight the President gave an address to the nation, about what other than, The Iraq War. The president's speech was filled with the same rhetoric that everyone has been hearing for years, "Terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world are seeking to topple Iraq’s government, dominate the region, and attack us here at home", "A free Iraq will set an example for people across the Middle East", "Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home." The familiar fear and hope cards were once again played to their fullest. Well I'm tired of this vicious circle strategy that so far has been employed in the war in Iraq, Iraq is dangerous, so we send in troops, there is some success, but not enough to take out troops because Iraq is still dangerous. The President doesn't know enough about the enemy he is fighting, he generalizes calling anyone he sees as a threat "extremists, terrorists, and Al Qaeda, well right there those are 3 distinct entities covering a wide group of people, "who specifically are we fighting?", "what does success in Iraq mean?", these are questions that the President seems unable to answer. Bush cites the Anbar Province as a sign of the troop surge's success, when really sheiks and local leaders decided they hated Al Qaeda more than they hate the U.S., that can hardly be credited to the additional troops. In his speech the president asks for more time, that by Christmas 5,700 troops may be able to come home and in March we will be given more status updates. But really this is more backwards logic, the troop levels can not be sustained at their current status, too many soldiers are on their 2nd and 3rd tours of duty, they need to go home. But to add insult to injury in the closing of his speech he speaks of one of the soldiers who died in Iraq saying, "They are doing so in a fight that is just, and right, and necessary. And now it falls to us to finish the work they have begun" only he is not included in that "us" he is simply watching from the stands, a faithful fan booing when things go bad and high-fiving his buddies when his team scores. However, the time for watching is over, the time for a new President who knows the enemy and has a plan of attack is now.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)