|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 23, 2020 10:02:10 GMT
If and when Donald J Trump splits the Republican Party and loses the election party officials and representatives will not have the electorate numbers to vote for and keep the bulk of them in power. He may start his own party or begin some sort of rebellious militia type movement. I believe this could be the Republican Party's LAST STAND. At least for a long long time.
my dedication:
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 23, 2020 10:02:38 GMT
• In April 2016, computer technicians at the Democratic National Committee discovered that someone had accessed the organization’s computer servers and conducted a theft that is best described as Watergate 2.0. In the weeks that followed, the nation’s top computer security experts discovered that the cyber thieves had helped themselves to everything: sensitive documents, emails, donor information, even voice mails.
Soon after, the remainder of the Democratic Party machine, the congressional campaign, the Clinton campaign, and their friends and allies in the media were also hacked. Credit cards numbers, phone numbers, and contacts were stolen. In short order, the FBI found that more than twenty-five state election offices had their voter registration systems probed or attacked by the same hackers.
Western intelligence agencies tracked the hack to Russian spy agencies and dubbed them the CYBER BEARS. The media was soon flooded with the stolen information channeled through Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks. It was a massive attack on America but the Russian hacks appeared to have a singular goal—elect Donald J. Trump as president of the United States.
Putin’s spy agency, run by the Russian billionaire class, used the promise of power and influence to cultivate Trump as well as his closest aides, the Kremlin Crew, to become unwitting assets of the Russian government. The goal? To put an end to 240 years of free and fair American democratic elections.
These Republican fascists feel IF WE DON'T GET OUR WAY, NO ONE GETS THEIR WAY. SCORCHED EARTH. They need to be stopped as do their hate America base of deplorables that are intent on destroying their party leadership first and then our government institutions and then NATO. Welcome to Russia West comrades.
DOES THIS SOUND LIKE THE BEGINNING OF A CIVIL WAR? Or will the deplorables stand down? My guess is our military won't allow a deplorable take over but we shall see.
www.yahoo.com/news/when-should-private-emails-become-the-publics-business-090002930.html
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 23, 2020 10:03:05 GMT
MORE OF WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A SORE LOSING REPUBLICAN. THEY THINK THAT ONLY THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO APPOINT SUPREME COURT JUSTICES. DAMN THE CONSTITUTION. THIS IS PARTICULARLY SCARY AND GOOD ENOUGH REASON TO VOTE DEMOCRATIC SO THEY CANNOT HOLD THE SENATE FOR ANOTHER MINUTE. I AM SO GLAD I CAN VOTE AGAINST THIS ANTI AMERICAN BASTARD IN NOVEMBER. John McCain: Republicans will block anyone Clinton names to the Supreme CourtThe cat is out of the bag.
Almost immediately after news of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death broke, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) proclaimed that “this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.” And, with rare exception, this has been the Senate GOP’s message since Scalia’s seat became vacant — let the election happen first, and whoever wins that election gets to pick the next justice. Nevertheless, in a Monday interview with a Philadelphia radio host, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) admitted that Republicans will continue to block anyone the next president nominates to the Supreme Court — at least if that president is Hillary Clinton.
“I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up.”
“The strongest argument I can make” for why Pennsylvania voters should reelect Republican Sen. Pat Toomey, is that a Republican Senate can “ensure that there is not three places on the United States Supreme Court that will change this country for decades.”
After host Dom Giordano pressed McCain on how he can promise that Republicans will block Clinton’s appointees when they did not block President Obama’s appointment of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, McCain noted that a handful of Republicans did support Sotomayor. This time around, however, he says things will be different.
“I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up,” McCain told Giordano. He added that “this is why we need the majority.
The tactic that McCain is proposing is nothing less than an existential threat to the Supreme Court itself. Unlike elected officials, who wield legitimate power because they were elected by the people, federal judges cannot claim democratic legitimacy. Their legitimacy flows from their obedience to a written text and the knowledge that they were selected in a fair and constitutional process.
McCain, however, is effectively proposing that only Republicans should be allowed to choose Supreme Court justices. And, as McCain notes, two or even three more vacancies could open up on the Court during the next president’s term, as three current justices are quite elderly.
If those justices are replaced through the same legitimate process that every other justice has endured, then the Supreme Court retains the same legitimacy that it enjoyed before Scalia’s seat became vacant. But imagine a world where Scalia’s seat — and two others — remain vacant for five years because a Republican Senate refuses to confirm anyone named by the president.
Then imagine that all three of these seats are filled five or nine or thirteen years from today, when Republicans finally manage to gain control of both the White House and the Senate.
What reason would Democratic governors have to obey the decisions of such a court? What reason, for that matter, would a future Democratic president have to obey that court’s decisions? It’s one thing to ask the people’s elected leaders to bow to the decisions of unelected officials chosen in a fair process. It’s another thing altogether to ask them to bend to the will of a rigged bench.
McCain, in other words, is threatening a very dark future if Republicans keep their Senate majority. He is threatening to intentionally trigger a constitutional crisis where a bench stripped of its legitimate authority tempts defiance from elected officials who’ve been empowered by the electorate to govern.
That is a dangerous future because the judiciary, for all of its many flaws, plays an essential role in ensuring that elected officials respect the rule of law and the rights enshrined in the Constitution. But it can only play that role if the Senate does not rob it of its rightful claim to authority. ________________________________________
UPDATE: Hours after McCain’s comments kicked off a firestorm online, his spokesperson walked back his comments in a statement first obtained by Talking Points Memo:
“Senator McCain believes you can only judge people by their record and Hillary Clinton has a clear record of supporting liberal judicial nominees,” communications director Rachael Dean told TPM in a statement. “That being said, Senator McCain will, of course, thoroughly examine the record of any Supreme Court nominee put before the Senate and vote for or against that individual based on their qualifications as he has done throughout his career.”
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 23, 2020 10:03:34 GMT
MORE REPUBLICAN DIRTY TRICKS
Defense contractor “white hat” tells FBI that Judicial Watch paid him to hunt for Clinton hack
Newt Gingrich brokered deal for moonlighting contractor to hunt for potential breach.
Sean Gallagher - 10/17/2016, 2:25 PM
More records from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's review of Hillary Clinton's e-mail practices have been released through the FBI's Freedom of Information Act site, including interviews with a number of individuals related to the security of the server. One of them was an employee of a defense contractor who claimed he was funded by Judicial Watch to investigate whether Clinton was hacked.
In the interview, the individual, whose name was redacted, claimed that he used the services of Dark Horse Data, a company owned by former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Reginald Hyde, to search for e-mails associated with Clinton's personal account. The company focuses on "specialized data acquisition for both US and International customers" and has provided database intelligence analysis to the US government.
The credibility of that information, however, is certainly in doubt. Hyde denied that his company was involved in any such task, telling Ars Technica in a phone interview that he "was quite astounded to learn" of the assertion in the FBI documents and saying that it was like "being asked how your day on Mars was. My company was categorically not involved in this."
In the summer of 2015, the FBI interview report noted, the interviewee reported that a senior staff member of the US Senate Judiciary Committee contacted him "out of concerns data from Clinton's e-mail server might end up overseas. Specifically [name redacted] wanted to determine if there was an intrusion into Clinton's server and, if so, whether exfiltrated data fell into the hands of a foreign power"—and whether that data could endanger the Senate staffer's sons, who were in the military.
The interviewee told FBI investigators that he had told the Senate staffer that he would have to look for data that was "genuine, authentic and relevant" to determine that there had been a breach. But the staffer had no money to fund the research, so the project was brought to Newt Gingrich—who obtained funding for the investigation from Judicial Watch.
In March of 2016, Judicial Watch paid the contractor's side company $32,000 for the first phase of the project—determining whether Clinton's server had been directly attacked. "Judicial Watch awarded the contract to [name redacted] because they were confident he understood both the Deep Web and the Dark Web," the interviewee told the FBI. The investigation also targeted data from Sidney Blumenthal's e-mail account, but Clinton's and Blumenthal's actual e-mail services were off-limits for the search.
Some of Blumenthal's files—but no e-mails—were found on a server in Romania, according to the FBI interview. The investigation also found an Excel file listing names of known or suspected jihadists in Libya—but part of that file was in Russian. "The file did not come from Blumenthal's server, but contained a reference to an IP address range that included the IP address of Clinton's server," the FBI report recounts. "Upon viewing this file, [name redacted] became concerned he had found a classified document and stopped the project."
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 23, 2020 10:04:12 GMT
If Hillary Clinton manages to win the election in two weeks and before he leaves office I would urge President Obama to PARDON Bill and Hill for every possible transgression the GOP might come up with just so we don't have to go through 4 or 8 years of any more of this GOP nonsense and obstruction. It would also be a good way for Obama to get even with what he has put up with at the hands of these people. Those on the left would not think less of him and those on the right are going to hate him no matter what he does so he has nothing to lose. Go for it Obama! Sadly though, I am not so sure she will win even though signs point to it.
If GOP Holds House, Clinton Investigations To Begin On Day One 10/26/2016 08:01 pm ET | Updated 6 hours ago
While it isn’t exactly certain yet that Hillary Clinton will be our next president, at this point it is worth contemplating what will happen after the election if she does win. I did so yesterday on the subject of Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court nomination, but today the news centers on how a Republican House would react to a Clinton presidency. In a word: petulantly. They are now promising endless investigations of Hillary Clinton, as far as the eye can see.
This shouldn’t be all that unfamiliar territory, for anyone who was politically aware during the 1990s, since endless investigations of Bill Clinton were pretty much par for the course while he was president. Whole right-wing industries were built on the foundation of attacking the Clintons, in fact. Some of them are still around today, and are still just as eager to begin attacking Bill’s wife, pretty much from the first minute after she’s sworn into office.
Here is Jason Chaffetz, the current chair of the House Oversight Committee, explaining what they’ve got teed up:
It’s a target-rich environment. Even before we get to Day One, we’ve got two years’ worth of material already lined up. She has four years of history at the State Department, and it ain’t good. In other words, two years of non-stop investigation, in the hopes that by throwing everything and the kitchen sink at President Hillary Clinton, something will stick. Even this prospect doesn’t go far enough for some on the right. One of those industries created to attack Clinton is called Judicial Watch, and here’s what their leader wants to see happen:
“You’re going to still have a clamor for a serious criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s conduct with respect to her emails and the [Clinton] Foundation,” Judicial Watch’s president, Tom Fitton, told NBC News. “There’s been no systematic investigation of various issues.” According to NBC, Fitton “has criticized GOP lawmakers for failing to pre-emptively impeach Clinton.”
He added, “I know this generation of Republican leaders is loath to exercise these tolls, but impeachment is something that’s relevant. They see [the oversight process] as an opportunity in some measure to keep their opponents off-kilter, but they don’t want to do the substantive and principled work to truly hold corrupt politicians or the administration or anyone accountable.”
Got that? “Pre-emptive impeachment.” That’s a doozy of a political neologism, right there. Why both with an investigation when you can just jump right to the impeachment part, right? As the Queen of Hearts famously said: “Sentence first — verdict afterwards!”
It would be funny, if it weren’t so serious. If Hillary Clinton does win the election, she is going to have a non-existent “honeymoon” period immediately afterwards, if House Republicans have anything to say about it. With the prospect of ever taking back the White House dimming with every election, and with the possible loss of control in the Senate staring them in the face, this is all they have left to promise to their rabidly anti-Clinton base: continued gridlock, and endless investigations.
The Republicans have already proven that they are incapable of governing. They have controlled the House and the Senate for years now, and they have yet to even put together a real budget. They are in full control, and they can’t even manage the most basic part of their job description, to put this another way. They cannot agree among themselves about much of anything, meaning they are incapable of passing any meaningful legislation. When they took control, they could have offered the American public concrete examples of their agenda — a replacement plan for Obamacare, say, or even a tax reform bill — and they have not. They are completely incompetent at coming up with any legislation, in fact. So obstructionism is really all they have left to offer the voters.
Republicans are like the dog who actually caught a car — and didn’t know what to do with it. They function much better as a minority party, in fact, because being in the minority is easy — all you have to do is be strongly against whatever the party in power is pushing. It requires no thought process at all, and it is a uniting factor for the entire caucus. Once you’re actually in power, however, you are supposed to come up with some ideas and plans of your own — but Republicans have shown they are incapable of doing so.
In fact, the only thing which could change the prospect of two years of endless Clinton investigations is if the Democrats took back control of the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, obviously, wouldn’t make it her highest priority to attack President Hillary Clinton. Even Chaffetz admits this, in a rather candid statement:
The one thing Chaffetz will not consider is an election that goes badly against the GOP. He sees the Oversight Committee as “the tip of the spear,” with a valuable role to play in challenging the executive. If Republicans lose the majority, Chaffetz has no Plan B.
“Heaven help us!” said Chaffetz, laughing. “Please, no! I’m not even going to think about that one. I can’t even utter the sentence out loud.”
Taking back the House is a longshot, since Democrats would need to flip 30 seats. If Hillary Clinton wins in a popular vote landslide (a margin of around 10 percent), then this might be a possibility. But it’s a remote one, because House elections are indeed (legally) “rigged” in favor of Republicans, by rampant gerrymandering after the 2010 redistricting. Even winning the popular vote for the House by over a million votes nationwide didn’t give the Democrats control of the chamber, in previous elections. That’s a pretty good definition of rigged, really.
If the Republicans retain control of the Senate, there might be a lot more pressure on the party to act responsibly and pass actual bills to do the country’s business. But if they lose the White House and the Senate, then the House will be the only place they have any real influence at all. As we’ve seen, they are completely incapable of passing their own agenda legislatively, meaning the only thing they’re all likely to agree upon is that they need to be as fierce as possible in attacking Hillary Clinton. For the next two years.
At least when Barack Obama was elected, the Republicans waited until he was sworn in before announcing their top priority would be to make him a “one-term president.” With Hillary Clinton, they’re not even waiting until then. They’re not even waiting until the election happens, in fact. Instead, even now, some are calling for “pre-emptive impeachment,” even though the possibility of a Senate conviction (which requires a two-thirds majority) would be incredibly low. But remember — that didn’t stop them the last time they impeached a Clinton. Chris Weigant blogs at:
www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/if-gop-holds-house-clinto_b_12665040.html
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 23, 2020 10:04:42 GMT
This is another good example of what Republicans do. We have been hearing about this for decades and just recently it is on steroids with Trump. They harp about voter fraud which is just not happening in any significant manner to justify the voter suppression techniques their party has been putting into place to disenfranchise voters. Finally, because the Trumpluddites have been citing Philadelphia as a target the city fought back. The results? Republicans proven wrong once again. On the other hand, Democrats accuse Republicans of election fraud, stripping and flipping elections which has been proven time and again.
TV station find votes by dead, but official sees no fraud Associated Press 10 hours ago . PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A Philadelphia TV station reported that it found at least three instances in which votes appeared to have been cast in recent elections under the names of dead people, but the city's Republican election commissioner said it didn't represent intentional fraud.
WPVI-TV (http://6abc.cm/2fcXVS7) dug through a decade's worth of election and death records in the overwhelmingly Democratic city.
Al Schmidt, a GOP election commissioner, said the station brought 20 cases to his attention. His office investigated and found three types of error: Some voters were alive and mistakenly listed on death rolls; some had the same or similar names to dead people in their voting precinct and erroneously signed in the wrong space at the polls; or poll workers accidently scanned the wrong barcode on the voter rolls.
In each case, the person voting did so only once, he said.
"There is no voter fraud in these cases," he said.
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has repeatedly warned of a "rigged" election, saying large-scale voter fraud is happening in the U.S. There is no evidence that such widespread fraud exists.
He's singled out Philadelphia as a city to watch, and has specifically raised concerns about votes made by dead people.
One of the three individuals cited by the TV station was a woman who died in 2006 but was recorded as having cast ballots in 2008, 2012, 2014 and this year.
Schmidt said his office found that a woman with the same name and different middle initial signed in the dead woman's spot. There was no additional vote cast, it was one vote cast by one eligible voter, he said.
Experts say cases of voter fraud involving dead people are isolated. They also say it would be an inefficient way to rig a presidential election, given that the fraud would have to be conducted one voter at a time and would be effective only in places where the race is close enough that the outcome could be swayed.
There are more than 9,000 election jurisdictions nationwide and hundreds of thousands of polling places.
Earlier this month, Schmidt dismissed the idea that vote rigging could take place in the nation's fifth-largest city.
He said election fraud does happen from time to time and his office vigorously prosecutes offenders.
"The real threat to the integrity of elections is irresponsible accusations that undermine confidence in the electoral process," he said.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 23, 2020 10:05:06 GMT
Data Driven Voter Alignment Analysis Paints a Grim Future for the Republican Party •November 01, 2016
If you can truly say "grim future" in a political context without being overtly partisan, a data-driven analysis of state-by-state voter alignment trends would be the way to do it. The website FiveThirtyEight.com recently released a fascinating set of graphic analyses showing what would happen in the election if only certain groups voted. The key takeaways were fascinating. If only women voted, the Democratic party would win by 458 electoral votes to 80. If only non-whites voted, the Democratic party would win every state in the union. If only millennials voted, the Democratic party would win over 400 electoral votes in a landslide. Indeed, the only categories where Republicans posted a win was angry white men.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 23, 2020 10:05:25 GMT
Quote by ronstadtfanaz: One good reason why is that the Republicans have managed to keep angry white men so angry by promising them everything, delivering nothing, and then blaming their failure to deliver on the following: Blacks; Hispanics; Asians; Muslims; uppity women; LGBTQ people; and anyone with a progressive/liberal view of the present and the future, as opposed to the GOP getting their rocks off about taking America backwards.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 23, 2020 10:05:44 GMT
Quote by ronstadtfanaz: One good reason why is that the Republicans have managed to keep angry white men so angry by promising them everything, delivering nothing, and then blaming their failure to deliver on the following: Blacks; Hispanics; Asians; Muslims; uppity women; LGBTQ people; and anyone with a progressive/liberal view of the present and the future, as opposed to the GOP getting their rocks off about taking America backwards. But how can republicans win elections if they only appeal to angry white men? More than half of the population is female for starters. And then there's the fact that there are many blacks, hispanics, asians, native americans, muslims, etc. And even among the category of white men not all of them are "angry." Or at least not angry because of racist, homophobic, sexist or islamophobic reasons. That makes for a rather small pond to fish from for republicans if they would indeed only appeal to the angry white men category.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 23, 2020 10:06:06 GMT
Quote by jhar26: As long as there are Angry White Men in this country, the GOP has a shot. Besides, it's not just the number of them that's the problem for the country at large. it's the party's newfound ability to discourage/intimidate voters whom they know won't vote for them. You may not think that's a big deal, but at least this year it is.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 23, 2020 10:06:30 GMT
MORE POLITICS FROM THE FASCIST RIGHT TRYING TO UNDO EVERYTHING PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS OR MIGHT WANT TO ACCOMPLISH FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
The So-Called ‘Midnight Rules Relief Act’ Is A Sweeping GOP Bill That Addresses A Non-Existent Problem 11/18/2016 11:27 am ET | Updated 3 hours ago
Rep. Hank Johnson U.S. Representative for Georgia’s 4th District
This week, the House GOP passed H.R. 5982, the so-called “Midnight Rules Relief Act.” In short, this is a sweeping measure that dramatically expands the ability of Congress to summarily disapprove rules submitted to it under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) during the last six months of an outgoing presidential administration. It represents yet another unfounded and reckless attempt to prevent the implementation of critical laws by federal agencies.
H.R. 5982 would amend the Congressional Review Act to enable Congress to bundle numerous rules finalized during the final year of a president’s term into a single vote on a joint resolution of disapproval.
Alarmingly, once these rules have been invalidated through this process, the agency may not adopt a subsequent similar rule absent express authorization by Congress. Notwithstanding the bill’s colorful title, the bill does not simply apply to rules submitted during the lame-duck period following an election.
To set the record straight, this bill applies to every rule submitted to Congress within the final 60 legislative days of a session.
As the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) has clarified, this would include rules submitted as early as May 2016.
Eight months should be adequate time for Congress to consider the merits of economically significant rules, which often take years to finalize.
Indeed, according to the nonpartisan Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), many of these rules adopted between an election and the inauguration of a new president involve “relatively routine matters not implicating new policy initiatives by incumbent administrations.”
Public Citizen similarly found in a report issued earlier this year that rules adopted during the final months of an administration take 3.6 years on average to finalize.
In other words, this bill is a solution to a non-existent and undocumented problem.
But according to my Republican colleagues, this legislation is necessary to combat politically-driven midnight rules in the final days of an administration. They also say that the Obama administration’s regulatory agenda has eroded job growth and economic prosperity.
Far from it, under President Obama’s leadership, we have seen the longest consecutive streak of private job creation, the fastest-growing middle class income ever, and more high-quality and affordable healthcare for working Americans.
Recently, the Census Bureau released new data indicating that in 2015, the median household income grew at the fastest rate on record, while the poverty rate fell at a faster rate than at any point since 1968.
New data from the American Community Survey likewise indicates that the number of uninsured Americans is declining in nearly every state.
These metrics reflect a strong record of progress as Federal agencies implement laws like the Dodd-Frank Act and Affordable Care Act.
If anything, we need new laws to ensure corporate accountability and stronger enforcement of the laws already on the books.
Follow Rep. Hank Johnson
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 23, 2020 10:06:57 GMT
Years of fear mongering, paranoia, and conspiracy theories on Fox News and talk radio paved the way for a Trump presidency. It’s up to journalists to stop that fear from continuing to hijack American politics. Carlos Maza explains:
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 23, 2020 10:07:20 GMT
It isn't just right wing media either. Corporate mainstream media has been flaming the fire to keep a horserace going as well as trying to create news rather than report it. Estimates are they gave Trump approximately 2 billion dollars in constant media coverage which perpetuated his message to non-traditional conservatives and middle of the road Americans. News departments in television were transferred to the Entertainment divisions not long after Reagan stopped enforcing the Fairness Doctrine in media. And not surprising to me Obama had the doctrine removed from the FCC rule book thereby allowing this nonsense to continue. Obama did that early on in his presidency which is why I think he lost the House to Republicans. He also put Social Security on the chopping block table in his GO ALONG TO GET ALONG STRATEGY with Republicans (which drove me crazy). Then regarding Hillary, all the news reported on mainstream media was bogus wikileaks chatter, email server nonsense, Benghazi lies, Hillary is dying nonsense. Frankly I don't know how anyone could possibly survive mentally and physically that kind of barrage of personal attack plus being attacked by Trump himself. And the media totally ignored the most popular candidate of all, Bernie Sanders. Now SOCIAL MEDIA is proving to be a problem with FAKE NEWS to rival FOX. There are NO CHECKS AND BALANCES.
Solutions? I think we need a non-biased media conglomerate that reports things fairly and honestly. A FACT CHECK ORGANIZATION. Something funded by the people with oversight by average Americans. It needs to be non-profit and not threatenable like NPR and PBS is by Republicans by continually trying to cut their funding.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 23, 2020 10:08:02 GMT
You're right Rob.. didn't Linda once call out that same irresponsible type of journalism? You're right Rob.. didn't Linda once call out that same irresponsible type of journalism? Yes, she was quite vocal about it in 2004. She did her own polls at her concerts and always dedicated the song Get Out Of Town to Dubya.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 23, 2020 10:08:38 GMT
yes but even before that. during her What's New era, early 80's she went on some Australian talk show via satellite and complained about Rupert Murdoch said he was responsible for the screaming headlines which create fear and was irresponsible journalism.. Our girl was really ahead the times. thanks for the video and reminder of the W Bush dedication. Can I use it for drumpf Yes. The Don Lane Show:
|
|