Patterico's Pontifications

11/8/2024

Weekend Open Thread

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Dana @ 8:21 am



[guest post by Dana]

Let’s go!

First news item

The cost of deporting 11 million undocumented aliens:

On the campaign trail, Donald Trump vowed to commence the largest mass deportation of undocumented immigrants in history on Day 1 if he retook the Oval Office.

Now that he’s president-elect, he’s pledging to make good on that promise — at any cost.

“It’s not a question of a price tag. It’s not — really, we have no choice,” Trump said Thursday in an interview with NBC News. “When people have killed and murdered, when drug lords have destroyed countries, and now they’re going to go back to those countries because they’re not staying here. There is no price tag.”

With an estimated 11 million undocumented aliens, a mass deportation is estimated to be around $315 billion, according to the American Immigration Council.

This is an unbelievable amount of money. Here is a breakdown of the costs:

The average cost of apprehending, detaining, processing and removing one undocumented immigrant from the United States in 2016 was $10,900, according to figures released by ICE at the time. That year, ICE also said the average cost of transporting one deportee to their home country was $1,978. Since then, the costs have only grown.

ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations has generally been underfunded and has previously had to reprogram funds to expand detention space, especially during border surges. But there are limits to how much money can be reprogrammed, officials said.

While the logistics of such an undertaking remain unknown, before all else, there is the moral consideration of ejecting 11 million people, many of whom have not committed crimes while living the U.S. We can assume that, of the non-criminals, many have lived, worked, and raised their families here. In other words, many, many of these people have been productive members of society.

P.S. I assume that we are all in agreement that, at the very least, minor children should not be separated from their families.

Additionally, and also very importantly: what are the protections that will be put in place to keep the food supply chain moving? After all, working on farms and in our dairies is the work that Americans don’t want to do and undocumented migrants willingly do. . .for us.

Second news item

Third news item

Morale-building at the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office:

On his first day in office four years ago, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. George Gascón issued a slate of progressive edicts that many prosecutors in his office said handcuffed them in the fight against crime.

When Nathan Hochman takes Gascón’s seat in fewer than 30 days, he has vowed to untie those same prosecutors’ hands, rolling back his predecessor’s policies.

Hochman’s agenda includes a return to seeking the death penalty, an increase in the prosecution of low-level misdemeanors and using sentencing enhancements to seek long prison terms in cases that involve guns or gangs.

After routing Gascón on election night by 23 percentage points, Hochman said in an interview Wednesday that he plans to immediately deliver on his campaign promises to wipe away several of his predecessor’s “blanket, lazy policies” when he’s inaugurated Dec. 2.

Fourth news item

What he said:

“The moment we win, we will rapidly review the cases of every political prisoner unjustly victimized by the Harris regime, and I will sign their pardons on Day 1,” Trump said at a Wisconsin rally in September.

Post-election:

More than 1,500 rioters have been charged in connection with the Capitol attack with some 645 of them sentenced to time in prison and 143 of them ordered into home detention.

Among those defendants are 10 individuals who were convicted by juries of seditious conspiracy — plotting to use force to oppose the authority of the U.S. government — for attempting to block the certification of President Biden’s election victory against Trump.

“Every January 6 defendant is hoping and anxious for some relief from President Trump,” said Carmen Hernandez, a defense attorney who has represented several Jan. 6 defendants, including in the conspiracy cases against members of the right-wing extremist groups Proud Boys and Oath Keepers.

FYI:

Penny Cudd was sentenced to two months of probation after pleading guilty to one count of entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds. In a teary video posted to X in the early hours of Nov. 6, she celebrated Trump’s win as a victory for all Jan. 6 defendants.

“It means the world to all of us J6ers to know that what we did was not in vain — and all of the pain and suffering and the families torn apart and the lives destroyed was not done in vain,” Cudd said.

“And we’re all really excited that we’re about to get presidential pardons.”

Fifth news item

Tariffs. . .again:

Advisers close to President-elect Donald Trump have been in discussions with House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.) on a broad tax package that is partially paid for by tariffs approved by Congress, according to two people familiar with the conversations who were granted anonymity to describe the internal discussions.

As part of those conversations, staffers and advisers close to the Trump team have also investigated whether House rules need to be changed to use tariffs as offsets for tax cuts, those people say.

The math:

It’s very unlikely that tariffs could help pay for a significant portion of any tax cuts, though — despite Trump’s flirtation with the idea of using tariffs to completely eliminate the income tax. In fiscal year 2020, U.S. Customs collected $74.4 billion in tariffs, accounting for only roughly 2.2 percent of total federal revenue, according to the Congressional Research Service.

According to estimates by the Tax Foundation, the U.S. would need to implement an across-the-board tariff hike of 69.9 percent to completely replace income taxes.

Sixth news

Possible Trump plan for ending the war in Ukraine (apparently it will take more than 24 hours):

The Wall Street Journal reported that President-elect Donald Trump’s team has drafted a proposal to end the ongoing war in Ukraine war on Thursday. Allegedly the plan includes significant conditions: Ukraine should give up its NATO membership aspirations for at least 20 years, the freezing of the current front lines and the establishment of a demilitarized zone between Russian-held territory and Ukraine.

The plan is said to exclude the possibility of US troops or UN contingents to monitor and enforce any ceasefire, instead suggesting that Kyiv’s European allies – such as Poland, Germany, Britain, and France – should take on the responsibility.

According to the WSJ source within Trump’s team, the US would continue to provide military training and support including weapons to Ukraine to help deter further Russian advances. However, previous reports from Trump’s advisors have hinted at the possibility that Washington could suspend military aid as a way to encourage Kyiv to enter peace negotiations.

Reminder: JD Vance has not been shy about his calls to halt sending aid to Ukraine. But offering clarity to the incoming administration is Ukraine’s former Defense Minister:

President Biden should use his short time left in offic to provide Ukraine with everything *they* have said they need. Not what Washington says they need, but what those actually in the fray say they need to win this war.

Seventh news item

May the saner minds prevail:

Donald Trump’s team appeared to be quietly distancing itself from Robert F Kennedy Jr in the immediate aftermath of the election amid speculation that the former presidential candidate could be handed control of US public health agencies.

Advisers to the president-elect questioned whether Mr Kennedy, a vaccine sceptic who has also been the subject of a series of bizarre stories involving animals, would make it through a security check for a cabinet position.

It raises questions about what role, if any, Mr Kennedy would be given in the Trump administration, as the Republican’s transition team sets about filling thousands of federal posts for his return to the White House.

MISCELLANEOUS: Briefly, as I process the election results, I am in shock that Donald Trump won. It is jarring that a majority of Americans preferred a massively corrupt individual over the other candidate. The result is the complete normalization of an individual who is anything but normal and who has, without shame, demonstrated this truth in spades over the past 9+ years.

Nonetheless, have a good weekend.

— Dana

11/5/2024

Election Day Open Thread

Filed under: General — Dana @ 3:01 pm



[guest post by Dana]

Here we go. I don’t have much to say, as it’s just a waiting game now. I don’t believe anyone is really struggling to figure out which candidate to vote for. So, let’s talk about the election, the candidates, and anything on your mind related to today’s voting. Be civil.

And how’s it going with the candidates? Let’s take a look-see:

Donald Trump posted this morning:

A lot of talk about massive CHEATING in Philadelphia. Law Enforcement coming!!!

And as a reminder:

—Dana

11/4/2024

California’s Usual Crop of Stupid Ballot Initiatives

Filed under: General — JVW @ 2:32 pm



[guest post by JVW]

I’ve been kind of procrastinating on this, but since I’ve had positive feedback in the past when I post about the wacky referenda and initiatives that are proposed here in the Golden State — I assume so many of you take a certain level of sadistic delight in beholding our lunacy — I reckoned that I would let you know what we are mulling over this year. Here’s what’s going on, and here is how I plan to vote.

(Note that all titles and summaries are written by the California Attorney General’s office, that is to say by partisan elected officials. The woman running for President on the Democrat ticket blatantly put her finger on the scale to write title and summaries which would be favorable to her party’s interests back when she served as AG. The state has since added a few safeguards (most notably a process where the title and summary are negotiated with rather than dictated by the AG’s office, though the AG does in the end determine the final result), you can bet that most of them still lean leftwards.)

PROPOSITION 2
Title: Authorizes Bonds for Public School and Community College Facilities. Legislative Statute.

Summary: Authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for repair, upgrade, and construction of facilities at K–12 public schools (including charter schools), community colleges, and career technical education programs, including for improvement of health and safety conditions and classroom upgrades. Requires annual audits. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs of about $500 million annually for 35 years to repay the bond. Supporters: California Teachers Association; California School Nurses Organization; Community College League of California Opponents: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

My jaundiced analysis: When you see the education establishment unite around a measure to pile on to our already more than $100 billion in bond debt, you know it’s likely a bad idea. Add in the fact that upgrading and building school facilities is really a local responsibility (and the state can already directly appropriate funds to lower-income districts when necessary) and this initiative is clearly a horrible idea to everyone except for the education establishment and the construction industry.

PROPOSITION 3
Title: Constitutional Right to Marriage. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

Summary: Amends California Constitution to recognize fundamental right to marry, regardless of sex or race. Removes language in California Constitution stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Fiscal Impact: No change in revenues or costs for state and local governments. Supporters: Sierra Pacific Synod of The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Dolores Huerta Foundation; Equality California Opponents: Jonathan Keller, California Family Council; Rev. Tanner DiBella

My jaundiced analysis: This one seems pretty straightforward. Proposition 8, passed by California voters in 2008, limited marriage in the state to one man with one woman. Proponents of same-sex marriage took the initiative to court and in 2013 all of the appeals were exhausted and same-sex marriage was legalized, which was then followed up by the very questionable Obergefell decision in the U.S. Supreme Court two years later, which green-lit same-sex marriage nationwide.

So given all that, it just makes sense to strike Proposition 8 from the California lawbooks, right? Well, hang on a moment. What is notable about Proposition 3 is what was left out of the text. Much of this constitutional amendment was modeled upon a Nevada ballot initiative passed by state voters four years ago. But there is one very important distinction between the Nevada initiative of 2020 and the California initiative of 2024: the former explicitly exempted clergy from being required to perform same-sex weddings, and the California initiative contains no such language.

I’m sorry but there is no way you are going to convince me that this is an accidental oversight. Not in a state like California, so dominated by radical ideologues. This initiative will pass overwhelmingly, and I’ll bet just about anything that LGBTQ advocacy groups along with anti-religion bigots will begin a campaign to harass Catholics, Orthodox Christians, conservative Protestants, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and perhaps even Muslims and Hindus into compliance. Advocates for Prop 3 claim that existing statues protect clergy, but baking this language into the state’s constitution absolutely opens the door to lawsuits against churches who refuse to marry same-sex couples. I have no problem with gay marriage as recognized by the state or by whatever religious group believes they are acceptable, but I am not going to enable deep-pocketed advocacy groups to perform lawfare on traditionalist believers. For this reason alone, I am voting against it.

PROPOSITION 4
Title: Authorizes Bonds for Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, and Protecting Communities and Natural Lands from Climate Risks. Legislative Statute.

Summary: Authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for water, wildfire prevention, and protection of communities and lands. Requires annual audits. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs of about $400 million annually for 40 years to repay the bond. Supporters: Clean Water Action; CALFIRE Firefighters; National Wildlife Federation; The Nature Conservancy Opponents: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

My jaundiced analysis: See my analysis of Proposition 2 above. This is exactly the sort of ongoing concern that needs to be addressed through the general fund of the state budget, not through borrowing money via bonds. Another deeply irresponsible initiative in a deeply dysfunctional state.

PROPOSITION 5
Title: Allows Local Bonds for Affordable Housing and Public Infrastructure with 55% Voter Approval. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

Summary: Allows approval of local infrastructure and housing bonds for low- and middle-income Californians with 55% vote. Accountability requirements. Fiscal Impact: Increased local borrowing to fund affordable housing, supportive housing, and public infrastructure. The amount would depend on decisions by local governments and voters. Borrowing would be repaid with higher property taxes. Supporters: California Professional Firefighters; League of Women Voters of California; Habitat for Humanity California Opponents: California Taxpayers Association; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce; Women Veterans Alliance

My jaundiced analysis: This is part of the ongoing attempt to convince Californians to make it easier to con the voters into borrowing money. The promised “accountability requirements” are a colossal lie; if you don’t believe me, read all of my bellyaching against the High-Speed Rail Authority. I really hope this abomination goes down in flames.

PROPOSITION 6
Title: Eliminates Constitutional Provision Allowing Involuntary Servitude for Incarcerated Persons. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

Summary: Amends the California Constitution to remove current provision that allows jails and prisons to impose involuntary servitude to punish crime (i.e., forcing incarcerated persons to work). Fiscal Impact: Potential increase or decrease in state and local costs, depending on how work for people in state prison and county jail changes. Any effect likely would not exceed the tens of millions of dollars annually. Supporters: Assemblymember Lori Wilson Opponents: None submitted

My jaundiced analysis: Notice how nobody wanted to submit an argument against this. I take that to mean that everyone knows this will pass in super-progressive California, and thus there is no sense in trying to fight against it. On the face of things I don’t have a particular problem with the initiative, but somehow I can’t help but feel that the promise by advocates that prisoners who refuse to work can be denied time credits and various privileges will all go up in smoke. Also, the main sponsor of this initiative is Esteban Nuñez, whose history of privilege we have discussed here. For these reasons, I’m going to vote No.

PROPOSITION 32 (yeah, there’s a stupid reason why the numbering bypasses 7-31)
Title: Raises Minimum Wage. Initiative Statute.

Summary: Raises minimum wage as follows: For employers with 26 or more employees, to $17 immediately, $18 on January 1, 2025. For employers with 25 or fewer employees, to $17 on January 1, 2025, $18 on January 1, 2026. Fiscal Impact: State and local government costs could increase or decrease by up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually. State and local revenues likely would decrease by no more than a few hundred million dollars annually. Supporters: None submitted Opponents: California Chamber of Commerce; California Restaurant Association; California Grocers Association

My jaundiced analysis: I hope that everyone here understands the arguments against the government arbitrarily setting minimum wages. California Democrats are the sort of people who say, “Hey, let’s make employers pay their workers more money!” and then when the prices of the goods created by these employees rises commensurately turn around and accuse the employers of price-gouging. This leads Democrats to demand an even higher wage for employees, and the cycle continues to repeat itself, at least until the job is given to a robot or touchscreen. The economic ignorance is utterly fascinating.

PROPOSITION 33
Title: Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property. Initiative Statute.

Summary: Repeals Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, which currently prohibits local ordinances limiting initial residential rental rates for new tenants or rent increases for existing tenants in certain residential properties. Fiscal Impact: Reduction in local property tax revenues of at least tens of millions of dollars annually due to likely expansion of rent control in some communities. Supporters: CA Nurses Assoc.; CA Alliance for Retired Americans; Mental Health Advocacy; Coalition for Economic Survival; TenantsTogether Opponents: California Council for Affordable Housing; Women Veterans Alliance; California Chamber of Commerce

My jaundiced analysis: The initiative that just won’t die. Every two years it seems that I write about the latest ballot initiative to allow localities to impose rent control, not just on older apartments but now even on brand-new buildings and single-family homes. It continually loses by a reasonably comfortable margin, but two years later it is back again (more on this later).

As usual, the ads both for an against this rent control proposition are the typical mix of half-truths, deceptions, and outright lies. Opponents believe that a repeal of Costa-Hawkins would also invalidate the rent increase caps that the California Legislature passed in 2019 and Governor Newsom signed into law. This assertion is questionable. Proponents throw around their usual balderdash about rich MAGA supporters cornering the housing market, and fail to acknowledge the unalterable fact that rent control never increases the supply of affordable housing, and quite often reduces it. As with every other year, this is an emphatic No vote for me.

PROPOSITION 34
Title: Restricts Spending of Prescription Drug Revenues by Certain Health Care Providers. Initiative Statute.

Summary: Requires certain providers to spend 98% of revenues from federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care. Authorizes statewide negotiation of Medi-Cal drug prices. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs, likely in the millions of dollars annually, to enforce new rules on certain health care entities. Affected entities would pay fees to cover these costs. Supporters: The ALS Association; California Chronic Care Coalition; Latino Heritage Los Angeles Opponents: National Org. for Women; Consumer Watchdog; Coalition for Economic Survival; AIDS Healthcare Foundation; Dolores Huerta

My jaundiced analysis: The aforementioned sponsor of the biennial attempts to undo Costa-Hawkins’s restrictions on rent control is the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. This group is empowered by the state to negotiate bulk pricing on HIV and AIDS drugs and then to sell them directly to patients, making a profit on the transaction. They then use the profits to fund left-wing ballot advocacy, most notably the pro-rent control measures. Having become fed up with this, the apartment owners and other anti-rent control groups are now trying to clip the foundation’s wings by pushing this initiative.

On the one hand, some principled conservatives are against Prop 34 because even though they recognize the AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s machinations, they believe that this is an issue better left to the state or the federal government for regulation. There is also a bit of a whiff of a bill of attainder here, since AHF seems to be the only nonprofit group which is partaking in these shenanigans. On the other hand, it is indeed an obnoxious practice for a nonprofit to use money for nakedly political reasons, even if they want to argue that those political reasons help their clients. And the idea that the California Legislature would ever put a stop to this is fanciful at best. Frankly I am still mulling over this one, though I may end up landing on “No” just because my temperament is to be distrustful of all ballot propositions.

PROPOSITION 35
Title: Provides Permanent Funding for Medi-Cal Health Care Services. Initiative Statute.

Summary: Makes permanent the existing tax on managed health care insurance plans, which, if approved by the federal government, provides revenues to pay for Medi-Cal health care services. Fiscal Impact: Short-term state costs between roughly $1 billion and $2 billion annually to increase funding for certain health programs. Total funding increase between roughly $2 billion to $5 billion annually. Unknown long-term fiscal effects. Supporters: Planned Parenthood Affiliates of CA; American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists; American Academy of Pediatrics, CA Opponents: None submitted

My jaundiced analysis: This is another proposition which has no formal opposition and is thus likely to pass. I do not like ballot-box budgeting, where the voters determine what programs get more or less funding, especially where matters of health care coverage are concerned. I’m going to vote No.

PROPOSTION 36
Title: Allows Felony Charges and Increases Sentences for Certain Drug and Theft Crimes. Initiative Statute.

Summary: Allows felony charges for possessing certain drugs and for thefts under $950, if defendant has two prior drug or theft convictions. Fiscal Impact: State criminal justice costs likely ranging from several tens of millions of dollars to the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Local criminal justice costs likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually. Supporters: Crime Victims United of California; California District Attorneys Association; Family Business Association of California Opponents: Diana Becton, District Attorney Contra Costa County; Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice

My jaundiced analysis: This is almost certainly the most closely-watched proposition on the ballot. Will the voters of the state undo much of the damage they have done in loosening penalties for criminal behavior, especially through the notorious Proposition 47 passed ten years ago? Kamala Harris, who supported Prop 47 as the state’s attorney general, refuses to tell voters whether or not she is voting this year to undo much of her ideological malfeasance. A real profile in courage for a woman who wants to be our nation’s Chief Executive. And Gavin Newsom did his best to undermine the proposition by cajoling Democrats into passing some moderate tightening of retail theft laws, but could not convince lefty true-believers to go any father. He’s officially against Prop 36, but won’t actively campaign against it and promises to “implement the will of the voters” should it pass. Another profile in courage from another unprincipled California Democrat. I am going to break my “No” streak on these propositions and vote in favor of this one, just to aggravate all of the right people. (And having said that, I will probably vote “Yes” on Prop 34 too, but I still have pangs of conscience about that one.)

And that’s it. Another year of truly crappy participatory democracy in the Golden State.

– JVW

The Day Before. . .

Filed under: General — Dana @ 11:11 am



[guest post by Dana]

It’s the day before the election, and both candidates are holding rallies as they make their closing arguments.

I have written repeatedly about why I am voting to keep Trump out of the Oval Office, and my basis for the decision: We can survive bad policy, we cannot survive a president who torches the Constitution.

With that, let’s hear your closing arguments for either candidate. Because, whether you’re for Trump or for Harris, you must have what you believe to be solid reasons for why you are voting that way. Additionally, let us know if there is anything that could change your mind about voting for your selected candidate.

And let’s be civil.

—Dana

11/1/2024

Weekend Open Thread

Filed under: General — Dana @ 10:01 am



[guest post by Dana]

Let’s go!

First news item

Targeting Liz Cheney:

Everyone okay with a former (and possibly our next) president and Mr. Protector of Women, targeting an American in this way? Are you okay with him rallying MAGAland like this? Or is it okay because she is on his “enemy from within” list?

A mentally unwell individual seeking retribution against Americans has no business being in the Oval Office.

Liz Cheney responds to Trump’s comments:

This is how dictators destroy free nations. They threaten those who speak against them with death. We cannot entrust our country and our freedom to a petty, vindictive, cruel, unstable man who wants to be a tyrant. #Womenwillnotbesilenced #VoteKamala

Here is Patterico’s observation of the Trump tweet:

Moreover:

People are responding to this seeming to think I don’t understand he painted this gleeful image as one of Cheney being in a war. I said that right in the tweet! But if you can’t see the malicious pleasure he takes in this violent imagery, you might be a hyperpartisan.

Second news item

Preparing for a loss: It’s “rigged,” yet again:

Trump’s allies – and the former president himself – are increasingly pushing debunked claims of voter fraud, spreading their rhetoric through podcasts with massive audiences, megachurch sermons and political rallies in key states. Some Trump backers, including pastors associated with Christian nationalist ideas, have described the election as a fight between good and evil, describing Harris as the antichrist or suggesting that God has anointed Trump as the victor.

If he loses the election, it won’t be pretty.

Third news item

Warnings if Harris wins the election:

“Are you feeling good about where things stand?” Dan Abrams, the founder of Mediaite, inquired. . .

Steve Cohen (D-TN) warned that if Vice President Kamala Harris defeats former President Donald Trump next week, “there may be blood.”

“But I think Trump won’t stop at anything, and we’ll be in courts, and we’ll be in litigation, and he’ll be telling people again to go to the Capitol if you want to have a country and fight like hell. I mean, we’re gonna have– there may be blood, and I’m concerned. And I said something to the caucus yesterday on a group call: they’re going to put up high, sturdy fences between, I think, the Electoral College and the swearing-in, the inauguration.

But I think they ought to get them up back up there Monday week. There could be behavior that’s untoward and violent anytime if Trump doesn’t win. He claims he wins, they say he doesn’t win, there could be chaos.

Fourth news item

The man who wants to become the next President doing what he always does:

Former President Trump filed a lawsuit against CBS News Thursday, alleging the network engaged in election interference by doctoring a “60 Minutes” interview with Vice President Harris, per a court filing.

Driving the news: Trump is seeking $10 billion in damages for CBS’s alleged “partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference,” which the lawsuit claims were intended to confuse the public and “attempt to tip the scales” toward Democrats in the 2024 presidential election.

Distract, distract, distract.

Fifth news item

President Zelensky’s understandable frustration with the lack of response to North Korean troops entering the battle:

“And if there is nothing — and I think that the reaction to this is nothing, it has been zero — then the number of North Korean troops on our border will be increased,” he warned.

South Korea has long claimed that North Korea, a nuclear-armed state, has been providing weapons to Russia, and it alleges that North Korean soldiers began mobilizing after Kim Jong Un signed a defense agreement with Putin in June.

Sixth news item

GOP report on campus anti-semitism rules officials:

The report also criticized senior leadership at Harvard University for failing to condemn Hamas following the group’s attack on Israel on October 7 –– saying that the school’s public statement –– published on October 9 –– was edited down to cut the word “violent” when describing Hamas’ incursion.

The report noted that Columbia’s leadership offered greater concessions to encampment organizers than the school publicly divulged –– “touting aggressive actions on antisemitism to the media,” but not adequately disciplining students that were involved in the “criminal takeover” of Hamilton Hall on April 30 this year.

In a statement from Columbia, a spokesperson from the school said that the university “strongly condemns antisemitism and all forms of discrimination,” adding that “calls for violence or harm have no place at our university.” The spokesperson also said that under Interim President Katrina Armstrong, the school has established a “centralized Office of Institutional Equity” to handle all cases of discrimination and harassment.

Lawmakers contributing to the investigation also reported that university leaders were hostile toward congressional oversight on antisemitic behavior at colleges, treating the issue like a “public relations” problem rather than a “serious” one.

Seventh news item

Threatening retaliation:

Iran will deliver a “definitive and painful” response to Israel’s recent attack on its territory, likely before the US presidential election on November 5, CNN reported Wednesday, citing an anonymous senior source.

The source, apparently an Iranian with knowledge of deliberations in Tehran, told the network: “The response of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Zionist regime’s aggression will be definitive and painful.”

Eighth news item

From a leading MAGA pundit:

Jesse Watters said on Fox’s The Five show that his wife, Emma DiGiovine, “pulling the lever for Harris, that’s the same thing as an affair,” when the panel discussed the vice president’s new ad encouraging wives to make their own choice in the voting booth.
. . .

Watters went on to say the scenario of his wife voting for Harris “violates the sanctity of our marriage—what else is she keeping from me, why is she lying about it?”

As the other panelists began to talk over each other, Watters added: “Why would she say she was voting Trump and then vote Harris? And then I caught her and she said, ‘I’ve been lying to you for the last four years.’ It’s over Emma. That would be D Day.”

What an absolute insult to his wife and their marriage. From the party of “family values,” it’s amazing he would openly admit his disrespect in this way.

Ninth news item

The continuing dehumanization of Afghan women:

“Even when an adult female prays and another female passes by, she must not pray loudly enough for them to hear,” Khalid Hanafi said in an audio clip released on Monday.

He also reiterated an earlier decree forbidding women from singing, saying: “How could they be allowed to sing if they aren’t even permitted to hear [each other’s] voices while praying?”

“They [the Taliban] are waging an all-out war against us, and we have no one in the world to hear our voices,” a former civil servant told the paper from Kabul. Now, “we cannot even hear each other’s voices”.

. . .

Women’s voices are “deemed to be potential instruments of vice”, said The Guardian. In this light, it’s “concerning” that international organisations have been “trying to normalise relations with the Taliban”, said former Afghan parliamentarian Shukria Barakzai. They are “whitewashing” the Taliban, disregarding its “widespread human rights violations”.

I can’t imagine what it’s like to not have the freedom to talk to anyone I want, wear what I want, and vote for the candidate of my choice without having to answer to anyone. And I really can’t imagine having a man in my life who is afraid of women and their agency.

Have a good weekend.

—Dana

10/30/2024

Supreme Court Allows Virginia to Purge Noncitizens from Voter Rolls

Filed under: General — JVW @ 8:27 am



[guest post by JVW]

A commonsense move:

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that Virginia is entitled to remove noncitizen aliens from its voter rolls, siding with the commonwealth over lower courts less than a week out from the election.

The order comes two days after Virginia attorney general Jason Miyares filed an emergency application, requesting that the Court stay an injunction that ordered Virginia to restore some 1,600 suspected noncitizens who are ineligible to vote to the state’s voter rolls. A federal appeals court upheld the injunction on Sunday, quickly prompting the attorney general to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Court released the one-page order Wednesday morning, noting that liberal-leaning Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson would have denied Virginia’s emergency request for an appeal.

Virginia made this move 90 days before Election Day, which is the latest they are allowed to do so under the law. The injunction was sought by the Biden-Harris Administration’s Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Kristen Clarke, who argued that the removal of 1,500 noncitizens was systematic and thus fell afoul of both voting rights and civil rights statutes. Ms. Clarke has been described by National Review as a “radical leftist,” who harbors racist and antisemitic ideas and has the de regueur obsession with equity. And the courts tried to elide the clearly legal nature of Virginia’s act by arguing that meeting the proscribed deadline is in fact too late if it does not leave enough time for a myriad of legal challenges. The Supreme Court is apparently not swayed by this weird logic, and thus those 1500 noncitizen residents of Virginia will not be on the voter rolls this coming Tuesday.

– JVW

10/29/2024

The Smart Newspapers Are the Ones Who Don’t Endorse Candidates

Filed under: General — JVW @ 6:24 am



[guest post by JVW]

Lost in all the brouhaha about both the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post declining to endorse Presidential candidates this year is the reality that fewer and fewer newspapers are participating in the endorsement game these days. Both the LAT and the WaPo apparently cancelled pending endorsements of Vice-President Kamala Harris due to the direct intervention of the newspapers’ billionaire owners, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong and Jeff Bezos respectively.

At the LAT, the owner’s daughter, a left-wing activist who officially has no formal role at the newspaper but who is privately said to brazenly meddle in both news coverage and editorial content, claims that VP Harris lost the editorial board’s endorsement due to the Biden-Harris Administration’s participation in Israel’s so-called “genocide.” But that claim completely ignores the fact that the editorial board was all set to publish an entirely expected endorsement of Ms. Harris until her daddy pulled the plug, and her father has denied reports that the situation in Gaza played a role. During last week’s Radio Free California podcast, co-host David Bahnsen speculated that the cancelled endorsement was payback for a past beef that Dr. Soon-Shiong had with Ms. Harris when she was the Attorney General of California.

As for the WaPo, Mr. Bezos himself wrote an op-ed in his newspaper expressing his belief that candidate endorsements contribute to a “perception of bias” which affects how readers view the news pages. Even more provocatively, he places his finger squarely on the problem that self-regarding media refuses to acknowledge: “The Washington Post and the New York Times win prizes, but increasingly we talk only to a certain elite. More and more, we talk to ourselves.” You can imagine how this must enrage the average WaPo reader, and indeed, 200,000 subscriptions have allegedly been cancelled in the last few days which probably doesn’t augur well for a newspaper which lost $77 million of Mr. Bezos’s vast fortune in the most recent year.

Over at National Review Online, Ryan Mills follows up these major developments in the Presidential race by comparing how urban newspaper editorial boards are treating Senate races in battleground states. Unsurprisingly, those who choose to endorse are largely siding with the Democrat candidate:

While most small and mid-sized papers have given up on endorsements in all but an occasional local race, National Review identified 15 papers — mostly big-city dailies — that endorsed in their state’s Senate race. Thirteen of them backed the Democrat.

In many cases, the endorsement process has become so predictable (and likely lacking in influence) that Republican candidates have simply stopped participating.

Texas newspapers such as the Houston Chronicle, the Dallas Morning News, the Austin American-Statesman, the San Antonio Express-News, and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram all have backed Democrat Colin Allred over incumbent Ted Cruz in the race. In Florida, the Miami Herald and the Palm Beach Post both endorsed Debbie Mucarsel-Powell over Republican incumbent Rick Scott. Polls still favor both Republican incumbents to win, but the endorsements strongly suggest that even in red states the newspapers feel free to let their inner leftie freak fly. I’ll leave it to the reader to decide whether that’s because newspapers have determined that they only reach a niche audience these days and that this niche consists almost exclusively of twee urban progressives who are now largely inculcated from how anybody outside of their orbit lives, as Mr. Bezos suggested. Even a moderate Republican like Larry Hogan in Maryland was bypassed by the WaPo, who while praising his two terms as a Republican governor in a blue state decided that his younger Democrat opponent is preferable because she “has the potential to serve in the Senate for decades,” as if that were a desirable factor rather than a cause for dread.

What is interesting, though, is the number of newspaper editorial boards who have determined that there is no upside to endorsing candidates and have opted out of the process entirely. Newspapers in Arizona and Montana, the former a battleground state in the Presidential race and the latter a battleground state in a key Senate race, are sitting this one out, perhaps realizing that they need Republican subscribers too. The Alden Global Capital newspaper group announced that it would no longer endorse at the Presidential, Gubernatorial, or Senatorial levels, and Gannett, who owns USA Today as well as 200 regional papers, now advises its publishers to not only eschew endorsements but to cut back on opinion writing too. In an internal memo sent two years ago, they surveyed the scene bluntly: “Readers don’t want us to tell them what to think. They don’t believe we have the expertise to tell anyone what to think on most issues. They perceive us as having a biased agenda.” Truer words were never spoken. Do you think anyone at the New York Times is listening?

– JVW

10/28/2024

Racist Material Used at Trump N.Y.C. Rally Not Red Flagged

Filed under: General — Dana @ 2:28 pm



[guest post by Dana]

What I learned from the Trump rally at Madison Square Garden last night is: not only is it okay to be a racist, which we already knew about Trump and friends, but it’s also okay to say the quiet part out loud. Anytime, anywhere. Because if calling Kamala Harris a “cunt” was red flagged and removed from the “comedian’s” set, then we can assume that everything else that was said, no matter how racist, had been approved:

“He had a joke calling [Vice President Kamala] Harris a ‘cunt,’” a campaign insider involved in the discussions about the event told The Bulwark. “Let’s say it was a red flag.”

A sample of some of the “jokes” made last night:

And we’re right there by a wide open border. Where are my proud Latinos at tonight? You guys see what I mean? It’s wide open. There’s so many of them! Absolutely incredible.Believe it or not, people. I welcome migrants to the United States of America with open arms. And my open arms. I mean, like this. (GESTURES FEARFULLY).It’s wild. These Latinos, they love making babies. Let’s know that they do. They do. There’s no pulling out. They cum inside. Just like they did to our country! HAHAHAHA!…. And, you know, there’s a lot going on. Like I don’t know if you guys know, this is. Literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. Yeah. I think it’s called Puerto Rico.

The Trump campaign has attempted to distance itself from the attacks on minorities, but given Trump’s own racist comments, the campaign trying to distance itself rings hollow:

Trump has said immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country” and called them “criminals” who will “cut your throat.”

Earlier this year, Trump repeated false claims about Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, eating the dogs and cats of the town’s residents.

—Dana

10/25/2024

Weekend Open Thread

Filed under: General — Dana @ 8:36 am



[guest post by Dana]

Let’s go!

First news item

The richest man in the world has been very, very busy:

Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and a linchpin of U.S. space efforts, has been in regular contact with Russian President Vladimir Putin since late 2022.

The discussions, confirmed by several current and former U.S., European and Russian officials, touch on personal topics, business and geopolitical tensions.

At one point, Putin asked the billionaire to avoid activating his Starlink satellite internet service over Taiwan as a favor to Chinese leader Xi Jinping, said two people briefed on the request.

While the U.S. and its allies have isolated Putin in recent years, Musk’s dialogue could signal re-engagement with the Russian leader, and reinforce Trump’s expressed desire to cut a deal over major fault lines such as the war in Ukraine.

At the same time, the contacts also raise potential national-security concerns among some in the current administration, given Putin’s role as one of America’s chief adversaries.

So both Trump and Musk have been in contact with Putin for at least two years. I’m sure there’s nothing to be concerned about. . .

But not so fast:

Before the inevitable wave of bullshit trying to wave this off, remember that Putin and his terrorist mafia state are avowed enemies of the United States and its allies and consider themselves in a war footing against them.

Like Trump, Musk cares only for his personal business dealings and his image. Putin, Xi, and other dictators always find such people easy to exploit because it’s also how they operate. No messy oversight, laws, or national interests, just quid pro quo.

MAGA’s regurgitation of Kremlin talking points was not a subtle clue. Whether Musk and the rest are really that ignorant & gullible or just that corrupt and treasonous will be for years of journalism and hearings to reveal. But it won’t happen if Trump wins & they write history.

Un-American? Traitorous? Certainly not a nothing burger.

Second news item

Fair game:

The US has said for the first time it had evidence that 3,000 North Korean troops were receiving training in Russia for possible deployment against Ukraine in “a very serious” escalation that would make them “legitimate military targets”.

. . .

The [South Korea] agency also said Pyongyang had sent more than 13,000 containers of artillery, missiles, and other conventional arms to Russia since August 2023.

Third news item

The sacrifice, as told by Alexie Navalny in his prison diaries:

I’m forty-five. I have a family and children. I’ve had a life to live, worked on some interesting things, done some things that
were useful. But there’s a war on right now. Suppose a nineteen-year-old is riding in an armored vehicle, he gets a piece of shrapnel in his head, and that’s it. He has had no family, no children, no life. Right now, dead civilians are lying in the streets in Mariupol, their bodies gnawed at by dogs, and many of them will be lucky if they end up in even a mass grave-through no fault of their own. I made my choices, but these people were just living their lives. They had jobs. They were family breadwinners. Then, one fine evening, a vengeful runt on television, the President of a neighboring country, announces that you are all “Nazis” and have to die because Ukraine was invented by Lenin. The next day, a shell comes flying in your window and you no longer have a wife, a husband, or children — and maybe you yourself are also no longer alive.

And from Navalny’s wife, Yulia Navalnaya, a warning, a caution, and wise words:

“I would say to American voters, don’t take everything like granted,” Navalnaya said in the interview when asked what her message is to Americans, less than two weeks before the 2024 election.

“You are still living in democratic country, and I still believe in American institutions, and just make the right choice,” Navalnaya said.

When asked, Navalnaya declined to say which candidate she supported in the U. S. presidential election.

Fourth news item

The Menendez brothers get a break:

Los Angeles County prosecutors are recommending that Erik and Lyle Menendez be resentenced for the 1989 killings of their parents in the family’s Beverly Hills home, providing the brothers with a chance at freedom after 34 years behind bars.

District Attorney George Gascón announced his decision at a Thursday afternoon news conference.

“We are going to recommend to the court (on Friday) that the life without the possibility of parole be removed and they would be sentenced for murder,” Gascón said.

That would normally mean a sentence of 50 years to life, he said. But because of their age — they both were under 26 at the time of the crimes — they would be eligible for parole immediately.

“I believe that they have paid their debt to society,” he said. “The final decision will be made by the judge.”

I’m sure the Menendez brothers will be sending flowers to celebrity influencer and criminal advocate Kim Kardashian for her work on their behalf.

Fifth news item

Just two weeks out from the election:

Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are at a stalemate, 48 percent to 48 percent, according to the final poll from The New York Times/Siena College before Election Day.

The results are a shift from the last Times/Siena College poll in early October when Harris had a slight lead, albeit inside the margin of error, of 49 percent to 46 percent.

. . .

The poll was conducted among 2,516 registered voters between Oct. 20 and 23. The poll’s margin of error is plus-or-minus 2.2 percentage points among likely voters.

Sixth news item

Kamala on abortion concessions:

. . . when asked if she would be willing to make concessions, including “religious exemptions,” she declined, stating, “We should not be making concessions when we are talking about a fundamental freedom.”

. . .

However, the best question to ask Kamala Harris would be if she opposes the Church amendments. The Church amendments were passed in 1973 after the Roe v. Wade decision. They were part of the Health Programs Extension Act of 1973, which was passed unanimously by the U.S. Senate and was opposed by only one House member. The Church amendments protect the rights of individuals and entities that object to performing certain procedures “because of their religious beliefs or moral convictions.” Does Harris want to force religious health-care professionals to participate in abortions against their will?

Seventh news item

A courageous woman in France:

Gisele Pelicot, the 72-year-old victim of mass rape whose ordeal has shocked the world, told a trial in southern France on Wednesday that she was determined that making her case public should help other women and change society.

Dominique Pelicot, her husband, has admitted to inviting dozens of strangers over nearly 10 years to their house to rape her after he had drugged her. Fifty other men also stand trial, accused of raping her.

Gisele Pelicot. . . told the court she was destroyed by what happened to her. She said how “unbelievably violent” it was for her that many of the accused in the trial, which started on September 2, said they thought she agreed to the rapes or was faking sleeping.

To help rape victims, Pelicot made a bold move:

She said she had insisted the trial be held publicly, and not behind closed doors, as is often the case to protect rape victims, in the hope it would help other rape victims.

“They (rapists) are the ones who must be ashamed,” she said, adding that having videos, filmed by her husband, of some of her rapes, shown during the trial, was “very difficult but necessary.”

Eighth news item:

Better late than never:

President Biden is expected to issue a formal apology for the federal government’s Native American boarding schools during a visit to Arizona on Friday.

. . .

“I’m heading to do something that should have been done a long time ago, to make a formal apology to the Indian nations for the way we treated their children for so many years,” Biden told reporters on Thursday.

FYI:

Between 1819 and 1969, the federal government operated more than 400 boarding schools across the country and provided support for more than 1,000 others, according to the Interior department’s investigation. The goal was complete cultural assimilation.

While most people will say this doesn’t matter, to the still-living victims, their families, and tribal members, guaranteed it does.

Ninth news item

Tucker Carlson, at a Turning Point USA event, compared Trump to America’s “dad” and that the nation needs a “spanking”. . .from “dad”:

Tucker Carlson addressed a raucous crowd in Georgia on Wednesday, where he compared former President Trump’s prospective return to the White House to a dad returning home, adding that he would give the country a “vigorous spanking.”

“There has to be a point at which Dad comes home. Yeah, that’s right. Dad comes home. And he’s pissed. Dad is pissed,” Carlson said. . .

“He’s not vengeful. He loves his children. Disobedient as they may be, he loves them. Because they’re his children. They live in his house. But he’s very disappointed in their behavior. And he’s going to have to let them know,” Carlson continued.

“When Dad gets home, you know what he says? ‘You’ve been a bad girl. You’ve been a bad little girl, and you’re getting a vigorous spanking right now. And no, it’s not going to hurt me more than it hurts you. No, it’s not. I’m not going to lie. It’s going to hurt you a lot more than it hurts me. And you earned this.’”

(video)

Eew.

America doesn’t need a “dad”. America doesn’t need a “spanking”. American voters are not children. America needs a stable leader who has the peoples best interest at heart, not his own. American needs a leader who understands the importance of the Constitution and its contents, and would never, ever consider subverting it. America needs a president who respects the rule of law. America needs a leader who doesn’t care more about his personal brand than the people he serves. America doesn’t need a leader who is frustrated by limits on presidential power, and who promises retribution on his perceived enemies. America doesn’t need a president who believes that perceived “enemies within” pose a greater threat to the nation than our enemies around the world. America doesn’t need a president who is willing to use the military to stifle his in-house enemies. America doesn’t need a president who admires murderous thugs who rule their people with an iron fist. I could go on and on, but you get the picture: America doesn’t need Donald Trump.

Have a great weekend.

—Dana

10/23/2024

John F. Kelly’s Disturbing Revelations About Donald Trump

Filed under: General — Dana @ 11:05 am



[guest post by Dana]

John F. Kelly, a former Marine and then-President Trump’s longest serving chief of staff, was interviewed about Donald Trump by a New York Times writer. While his observations are not really surprising (after all, we’ve seen Trump in action for 9 years), having the very worst confirmed though, makes it all the more jarring. His revelations about the former president as seen behind closed doors, reveals that the disturbed individual who held the most powerful position in the world (and seeks to again), was (and is) disdainful toward the U.S. military, admires murderous dictators (including Hitler), wants a military that is loyal to him alone, and resents the limits on a president’s power.

Consider:

Kelly said that based on his experience, Trump met the definition of a “fascist.”

In response to a question about whether he thought Mr. Trump was a fascist, Mr. Kelly first read aloud a definition of fascism…“Well, looking at the definition of fascism: It’s a far-right authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy,” he said.

Mr. Kelly said that definition accurately described Mr. Trump.

“So certainly, in my experience, those are the kinds of things that he thinks would work better in terms of running America,” Mr. Kelly said.

He added: “Certainly the former president is in the far-right area, he’s certainly an authoritarian, admires people who are dictators — he has said that. So he certainly falls into the general definition of fascist, for sure.”

Kelly also discussed Trump’s frustration at his powers being limited:

“He certainly prefers the dictator approach to government,” Mr. Kelly said.

Mr. Trump “never accepted the fact that he wasn’t the most powerful man in the world — and by power, I mean an ability to do anything he wanted, anytime he wanted,” Mr. Kelly said.

Kelly revealed Trump’s criticism of the U.S. military, and his willingness to use them against his perceived domestic enemies:

Mr. Trump’s recent comments about using the military against what he called the “enemy within” were so dangerous, he said, that he felt he had to speak out…“And I think this issue of using the military on — to go after — American citizens is one of those things I think is a very, very bad thing — even to say it for political purposes to get elected — I think it’s a very, very bad thing, let alone actually doing it,” Mr. Kelly said.

Unbelievably, yet not:

Mr. Kelly confirmed previous reports that on more than one occasion Mr. Trump spoke positively of Hitler.

“He commented more than once that, ‘You know, Hitler did some good things, too,’” Mr. Kelly said Mr. Trump told him.

Moreover, Kelly discusses how he had to instruct the President of the United States that Hitler was not to be admired:

“First of all, you should never say that,” Mr. Kelly said that he told Mr. Trump. “But if you knew what Hitler was all about from the beginning to the end, everything he did was in support of his racist, fascist life, you know, the, you know, philosophy, so that nothing he did, you could argue, was good — it was certainly not done for the right reason.”

Dovetailing with the NYT report’s portion concerning Trump and Hitler, The Atlantic also reports that Trump wanted generals like Hitler’s:

“I need the kind of generals that Hitler had,” Trump said in a private conversation in the White House, according to two people who heard him say this. “People who were totally loyal to him, that follow orders.”

Kelly was compelled to provide Trump with a little history lesson regarding Hitler:

In their book, The Divider: Trump in the White House, Peter Baker and Susan Glasser reported that Trump asked John Kelly, his chief of staff at the time, “Why can’t you be like the German generals?” Trump, at various points, had grown frustrated with military officials he deemed disloyal and disobedient. (Throughout the course of his presidency, Trump referred to flag officers as “my generals.”) According to Baker and Glasser, Kelly explained to Trump that German generals “tried to kill Hitler three times and almost pulled it off.” This correction did not move Trump to reconsider his view: “No, no, no, they were totally loyal to him,” the president responded. [W]hen Trump raised the subject of “German generals,” Kelly responded by asking, “‘Do you mean Bismarck’s generals?’” He went on: “I mean, I knew he didn’t know who Bismarck was, or about the Franco-Prussian War. I said, ‘Do you mean the kaiser’s generals? Surely you can’t mean Hitler’s generals? And he said, ‘Yeah, yeah, Hitler’s generals.’ I explained to him that Rommel had to commit suicide after taking part in a plot against Hitler.” Kelly told me Trump was not acquainted with Rommel.

In the NYT interview, Kelly notes that Trump views personal loyalty to him outweighs loyalty to the Constitution, looks down on those who were disabled on the battlefield, and calls service members who were injured or killed “losers and suckers”.

But the greatest danger, I think, is Trump’s demand for loyalty to be toward him before the Constitution. In other words, he would like to see the removal of our nation’s ultimate guardrail. One just has to look around the world to see how destructive compelled loyalty to a fascist leader is, to a nation and its people. It’s therefore mind-boggling that there are voters who actually think this would be a good thing. Even if Trump is not successful at securing the ultimate loyalty, the mere fact that he wants it, demands it, and sees it as beneficial (TO HIM), should be a big enough red flag for voters to understand that he simply cannot be allowed to step foot in the Oval Office again. The danger he would present to our nation with this mindset must be considered un-American and unacceptable to the voters.

Kelly confirms that he is raising alarm bells now because the election is just two weeks away:

In many cases, I would agree with some of his policies,” he said, stressing that as a former military officer he was not endorsing any candidate. “But again, it’s a very dangerous thing to have the wrong person elected to high office.

Especially dangerous for a second time…

Trump reacted to Kelly’s comments tonight, posting on social media:

Thank you for your support against a total degenerate named John Kelly, who made up a story out of pure Trump Derangement Syndrome Hatred! This guy had two qualities, which don’t work well together. He was tough and dumb. The problem is his toughness morphed into weakness, because he became JELLO with time! The story about the Soldiers was A LIE, as are numerous other stories he told. Even though I shouldn’t be wasting my time with him, I always feel it’s necessary to hit back in pursuit of THE TRUTH. John Kelly is a LOWLIFE, and a bad General, whose advice in the White House I no longer sought, and told him to MOVE ON! His wife once told me, at Camp David, John admires you tremendously, and when he leaves the Military, he will only speak well of you. I said, Thank you!

–Dana

Next Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0782 secs.