About Me

Name: Patrick Henry
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

NEW CIVIL WAR - FINAL

 
   So, will the current virulent political polarization eventuate in Americans fighting
 
government -- and even one another -- in the streets? It seems more possible now
 
than at any time since the Civil War of the 1860s, but like all historic upheaval it
 
depends on several factors.
 
   One key is the middle class that represents the latgest social group and the mainstream
 
of the nation. If and when it is the consensus of this group that government intends
 
to limit their potential for upward financial mobility, or that government policies are
 
unacceptably punitive and confiscatory toward them, the potential for rebellion and
 
violence will escalate exponentially. The objective of left-leaning (socialist) politics
 
has always been the "classless society." If it becomes evident that this will be achieved
 
by pushing the middle class (majority) down, open rebellion may well occur.
 
   It also depends on whether radical government policies can be effectively moderated
 
by electoral and parliamentary means. If a majority come to believe that a "one-party
 
system" is being perpetuated, that elections are being manipulated through clever
 
identity politics and shekeinery and that it is impossible, by other means, to restore
 
reasonable checks an balances, the seeds for revolution will have been irrevocably
 
sown.
 
   Additionally, if repressive government regulations in areas such as the private
 
right to own and bear arms, the ability to own and solely control private property,
 
 the freedom to strive for ecoomic independence or the right to open and free
 
 speech (including dissenting speech) begin to severely limit the liberties now
 
enjoyed by Americans they WILL rebel, and they WILL fight.
 
   Should hostilities break out, what might such conflict look like. Clearly we
 
will not see armies massed in the hills outside Gettysburg, as in the bloodiest
 
battle of the 1860s. It may start with a Kent State type incident, with government
 
violently repressing massed dissent, or be triggered by the implementation of
 
some new Draconian policy. It will be guerilla warfare, adopting the tactics like
 
those of the Weather Underground and targeting government facilities and even
 
officials. It wil doubtless involve relentless cyber-attacks and aim at degrading
 
governments capacity to function. If it becomes class warfare, it may even result
 
in open battles between the entitlement population and those who consider
 
themselves victimized by the growth of those entitlements. It may result in
 
the suspension of posse comitatus, federalization of the national guard and open
 
mobilization of the military against the civilian population. The matter of
 
whether American troops, a majority of whom disagree with government policy,
 
would obey an order to fire on Americans on American soil is anyone's guess.
 
   But the fact is that enough of the elements exist -- at least in rudimentary
 
fashion -- to suggest that a revolt is possible. The clear message to government
 
is to slow down systemic change, listen to ALL the people, not just political
 
patrons, the entitlement class or powerful unions, and seek moderations that
 
will allow Americans to digest change gradually. Avoid overt power grabs and
 
arbitrary suspensions of traditional freedoms. Allow the courts time to consider
 
and rule on constitutional issues at stake. Avoid the apperance of discarding
 
or discounting traditional American values. Or pursue an opposite course at
 
your own peril. America was born in revolution and waged a bitter civil conflict
 
to preserve a union and achieve rights for all. Any group or government that
 
believes Americans have lost the drive, the commitment or the stomach to defend
 
their hard-won liberties -- by force if necessary -- embraces a deadly delusion.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

CIVIL WAR (PART II)

 
    Long before civil war broke out between the north and south, a climate
 
 of dislike and suspicion prevailed. Northeners routinely regarded their
 
 southern counterparts as cruel, ruthless and morally bankrupt. Southerners
 
listened to the abolitionist moralizing harboring suspicion that the demanded
 
 immediate release of all slaves was based not as much on moral grounds
 
 as on a desire by northern bankers and working class people to level the
 
 economic playing field between themselves and southern plantation owners.
 
 
    Southerners resented what they perceived as creeping federalism, and
 
 saw the rights hard won in the Revolutionary War slipping away from
 
 the states to a congress and president in Washington. Northerners, on
 
 the other hand, welcomed that trend as a way of reigning in what they
 
 regarded as recalcitrant southern aristocracies. Abolitionists found the
 
 human bondage of slavery morally abhorrent, but southerners worried
 
 that releasing the slaves would cause such a great economic and social
 
 upheaval and drain on meager states' resources that it was impractical
 
 without a careful plan. While Abraham Lincoln cut a giant and historic
 
 swath he was, at the time, perceived as a highly polarizing leader, with
 
 the north exalting him as the "great emancipator" and the south loathing
 
 him as a tyrant with an agenda. So the fight was formally about slavery,
 
 but historians then and now have divined far more complex agendas. In the
 
 excellent civil war film Gettysburg, a Confederate general expressing his
 
 feelings about the conflict is depicted saying, "We should have freed the
 
 slaves and THEN fired on Fort Sumter." Many civil war era southerners
 
 felt exactly that way.
 
    Fast forward to 2009 and the election of Barack Hussein Obama to the
 
 highest office in the land. Charismatic and silver-tongued, he has been
 
 hailed by the masses as a social savior, and exclusively embraced by the
 
 media and a congress that is predominantly of his party. But not all worship
 
 at his feet. Many perceive him as a reckless spendthrift whose social agenda
 
 is nothing more than an irresponsible and dangerous shift toward socialism.
 
 His rash takeovers of troubled business organizations, repeated promises
 
 to "spread the wealth around," embrace of ten-year multi-trillion dollar
 
 government budget deficits and cavalier public criticisms of the people he
 
was elected to represent have disillusioned many, and are making him new
 
enemies and detractors daily.
 
  States are beginning to openly rebel at federal interference, with some
 
 rejecting outright federal bailout funds that carry heavy strings, and
 
 passing laws designed to override Draconian gun control regulations
 
 contemplated by the feds. The federal agency charged with protecting
 
 the homeland openly worries about the radicalization of those disagreeing
 
 with federal abortion policies that they consider every bit as immoral as
 
 slavery, with unbridled illegal immigration and the prospect of avaricious
 
 government taxation. People see their individual rights slipping away, a
 
 belief aided when Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State says publicly that
 
 "we have to stop looking at the individual" so that the collective good,
 
 solely adjudged by government, may be served.
 
     America has survived deep polarizations before. Prohibition, Civil Rights
 
 and forced integration and the wars in Viet Nam and Iraq have sent our
 
 citizens to the street in mass protest amd resulted in violent clashes
 
 between competing interests and between protestors and authorities. The
 
 strategic difference between those polarizations and the present one is
 
 that they were all single-issue disputes, while this one, as in 1860, covers 
 
  a far broader range of closely related issues.
 
   From the Revolutionary War of the 1770s forward, it has never been
 
 the nature of Americans to suffer perceived oppression in silence. It is
 
 virtually inevitable that disillusioned voters will eventually take to the
 
 streets to protest government takeovers of private business, government
 
 recklessness, interference in the healthcare system. amnesty for those
 
 having entered the country illegally, and the cronyist system of favoritism
 
 being practiced in Washington today. It is equally inevitable that
 
 government will respond in an effort to suppress that dissent.
 
   So are we on a collision course with another Kent State, where National
 
 Guard troops fired on protestors, or with an American redux of Tiananmen
 
 Square? And if so, will such incidents be the precursor to wider civil
 
 conflict? More importantly, is there a rational way of backing away from
 
 the abyss BEFORE the veil of peace is rent? The third and final part of
 
 this essay will speculate on whether Civil War is a thinkable possibility,
 
 if so what it might look like and what can be done by all parties to
 
 pre-empt it.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

NEW CIVIL WAR LOOMING?

 
   Civil political discourse in the United States of America is but a distant memory.
 
Venomous partisanship flourishes and a ruthless winner-take-all spoils system seems
 
firmly in place. The media has divided the nation into "red states" and "blue states" on
 
the basis of a single election, and declared the losing party dead. The blogs are rife
 
with namecalling and hysterical tirades as liberals and conservatives trade hostile
 
barbs. The nation seems more polarized than at any time in its 200 year history.
 
   There are chilling similarities between the current climate of enmity and that which
 
existed circa 1860 when civil war broke out between northern and southern states,
 
pitting Americans against each other in a bloody conflict that left scars still felt today.
 
It is simplistic revisionist history to suggest that the war was simply about slavery.
 
There were deep and pervasive economic and social differences between the north
 
and the south, with each concerned for its own business interests and each convinced
 
that its way of life was best. Unsettled disputes about federal rights versus states'
 
rights raged, with diverging interpretations of the constitution hanging in the balance.
 
The abolitionist movement was gaining steam in the north, with proponents casting
 
slavery as the moral issue that it was and calling for the freeing of all slaves. The
 
northern media shrilled termagant bile at the south, mocking southerners as uneducated
 
countryfied dolts with faulty moral compasses. Then Lincoln was elected, which
 
seemed to the south a last straw. Perceived as a pro-northern, pro-abolitionist, pro-
 
federal rights president, he would see seven states secede from the union before he
 
took the oath of office. Then, when the south had lost, with some of its major cities
 
razed to the ground, the historically inevitable happened. John Wilkes Booth put a
 
bullet in Abraham Lincoln's brain.
 
   The simple point is this: when Americans see themselves as shut out of the public
 
conversation of government, when they perceive their rights being trampled upon
 
wholesale, when they see what they have worked and scrounged to accumulate about
 
to be confiscated by an invasive and oppressive regime, they WILL rebel. There are
 
few moralist arguments that trump the individual American's right to life, liberty and the
 
pursuit of happiness. And when that sanctuary is profaned, conflict is as certain as
 
night following day.
 
   In tomorrow's post some direct parallels will be drawn between 1860 and today,
 
and some predictions will be made about where this frightening trend might be
 
going. Please share your comments, and tune in for Part II.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE AUDACITY OF DECEIT: 100 DAYS IN

 
   Those not wooed by his dulcet baritone and Hollywood charm, and who actually
 
listened to what candidate Barack Obama was promising knew then that his message
 
of hope was fool's gold -- what the masses wanted to hear, but essentially false. Now
 
that America has endured his first 100 days in office, the reality of these bold
 
fabrications is coming clear.
 
   Candidate Obama promised to end the war in Itaq almost immediately. Everyone with
 
a bare modicum of foreign policy, military, intelligence and political savvy knew this
 
was impossible. Today combat troops are still in Ieaq and will be indefinitely, and the
 
war in Afghanistan is becoming Obama's Iraq. Members of his own party are upset with
 
him. He promised the impossible precisely because he was a novice, with no real world
 
experience in being anything but a politician. On the stump one can promise the world,
 
and he did. But from the Ovsl Office things look quite different. This promise is
 
unfulfilled.
 
   Candidate Obama vowed to close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, and once
 
in office immediately signed such an order. Unfortunately, like the amateur he is,
 
he made the decision without a plan for accomplisging the task. Now congress,
 
including his own party, won't give him the money to do what he's promised. Not,
 
at least, until he presents them with  a feasible plan regardig what to do with those
 
detained there. Another promise easily made that may never be kept.
 
   Candidate Obama promised fiscal responsibility and an end to government waste.
 
President Obama has embarked upon an unprecedented and reckless spending spree
 
that threatens to leave the nation trillions of dollars in debt for generations to come.
 
He remarked recently that congress must pass his universal healthcare boondoggle
 
this year, or they never will. He knows that's true, because in another year the nation
 
will be so deep in debt because of his administration's spending that there will be no
 
way to pass it. Fiscal responsibility was the promise. Fiscal recklessness is the
 
reality.
 
   Candidate Obama priomised even handed centrist government and government
 
full disclosure. Instead he and his minions have obstructed the investigation into the
 
illegal activities of ACORN, now being linked by the media directly to the Obama
 
campaign. His Justice Department has dropped charges in a case it had already won
 
against the New Black Panthers who were reported ny eyewitnesses brandishing
 
weapons and shouting racial slurs at voters in a Philadelphis polling place. Now
 
he has nominated to the Supreme Court one who fancies herself better qualified than a
 
white man for the poisition based on her race and gender, who ruled agaimst
 
Coonecticut firefighters denied earned promotions because blacks didn't outscore
 
them on the exam, and decided that the 2nd amendment to the Constitution applies
 
to the federal government, but not to state governments. It appears that people of
 
color may expect justice from this highminded administration -- as long as that
 
color ISN'T WHITE!
 
   Candidate Obama promised lower taxes on those making less than $250,000
 
annually, and that seniors making under $50,000 would pay no taxes. President
 
Obama is pushing hard for an enormous energy tax that would affect all citizens,
 
is now considering a Value Added Tax (national sales tax) to pay for his healthcare
 
program (that would also affect all of us), and has not delivered anything on his pledge
 
to seniors. Say one thing, do the opposite.
 
   Democrats will never admit it, but they have a liar for a leader. Unfortunately, the
 
country is saddled with that same liar until 2012. Someone said the other day that
 
a "Republilcan wave is building." That's wishful thinking. What's building is an
 
AMERICAN wave of resentment against endless tax increases, big government
 
intruding in every aspect of their private lives, enormous and irresponsible spending,
 
dissolution of American busines instituions and creeping socialism. That's the
 
stuff of which revolutions are made, and Republicans who have lost their way had
 
better take note of it as well. Most of all, the country is growing sick of lying leaders
 
like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and, yes, Barack Obama. The appearance of deceit
 
was his predecessor's downfall. Obama doesn't care, because there is no line he will
 
not cross, no promise (or law) he will not break and no one he will not silence or
 
trample on to get his way. His deceitfulness is truly audacious.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

CAN YOU PASS THE B.H.O.; I.Q. TEST?

 
   With many unfilled positions in his govcernment, Barack Obama seems hard-
 
pressed to find enough Democrats who aren't under indictment or investigation
 
or running from the IRS to fill them So he and Rahm Emanuel have devised a
 
soecial civil service I.Q. test for prospective appointees. Pass it and you might
 
just find yourself deputy secretary of something or ambassador to Lithuania.
 
The test is a simple true-false exercise and alternate versions are available in
 
Spanish and ebonics.
 
(1) True or False? Abortion is the best and easiest method of birth control and the
 
government should pay for it.
 
(2) True or False? The fairest way to bail out the automakers is to force them into
 
+controlled" (manipulated) bankruptcy and then give half of what's left to the UAW,
 
leaving secured (actual) creditors with 29 cents on the dollar.
 
(3) True or False?  Guantanamo Bay recruited more terrorists than bin Laden and
 
Alzawahiri put together.
 
(4) True or False?  Americans really WANT government rationed health care for
 
which they have to wait in line.
 
(5) True or False? Electricity is too cheap. If we can double the price through a
 
cap-and-trade system we'll all be happier.
 
(6) True or False?  Our returning veterans are more dangerous than the jidaists, so
 
 we have to watch out for them.
 
(7) True or False? Bringing detainees from Guantamo Bay to America is a great
 
idea for keeping America safe.
 
(8) True or False. "Drill, baby, drill," is what taxpayers want the government to
 
do to their wallets, bank accounts and 401ks.
 
(9) True or False? Nancy Pelosi's comments about the CIA have nothing in common
 
with a Bernie Madoff "not guilty" plea.
 
(10)  True or False? ACORN registers only living, qualified voters.
 
    If you answered "True" to two or more questions we're sorry but you won't make
 
the cut. Remember to vote for us again. If you answered "True" on three to six of the
 
questions, you may at least get an interview. Bone up on the ones you missed. If you
 
answered "True" on seven eight or nine questions, you probably belong to the media

and can skip the preliminary
interview and send in a resume. If you said "True" ten times

you're a lock. To receive
your appoinment call 1-202-URA-FOOL. And have a nice day!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

MORAL HIGH GROUND OR COMMON SENSE SWAMP?

 
   President Obama and his administration vowed yesterday to stay the course on
 
the abolition of "harsh interrogation" and the closure of the prison camp at
 
Guantamo Bay. Critics within both parties seem to disagree, but the single-themed
 
justification is that Gitmo is a "stain on America" as long as it remains open, and
 
that it is a symbol to the world of how this nation lost its way
 
   Whatever one thinks of such a rationale, it is revisionist to deny that America
 
bashing abroad (and among leftists at home) was in full vogue long before
 
details of the Guantanamo interrogations emerged. To serious analysts persistence
 
on closing Gitmo seems far more a token concession to the left at home than an
 
image modifier for the rest of the world, most of whose governments know full
 
well why so-called "turture" was utlized to extract information.
 
   While Obama wishes to characterize himself and his party as the White Knights of
 
Justice, and Bush and the Republicans as the dark forces of evil, the media
 
sensationalization of the CIA "torture" rationale and the yet-to-be seen "abuse"
 
photos do far more to obscure than to clarify the legtimate differences between
 
the differing styles and points of view. The Bush administration was consistent
 
in holding that the non-uniformed, non-flagged thugs who represented no
 
legitimate government, violated every law and code of war and frequently used
 
innocent civialians as human shields were NOT soldiers at all, but unlawful
 
enemy combatants, criminals, morderers intent on harming Americans. As
 
such they merit no standing as prisoners of war and detention at Guantanamo Bay
 
was a merciful alternative to simply shooting them at the point of capture, which
 
American forces would have been entitled to do. Obama, on the other hand, seems
 
determined to accord the same men not only POW status, but the same rights as
 
those of crminals detained within the American justice system. He holds that the courts
 
have already ruled on that matter and so he has no choice. And yet is yesterday's speech
 
he made it quite clear that in some instances he would reserve such a choice.
 
   Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney made impassioned arguments for
 
both points of view in televised speeches yesterday. And objective viewers would
 
have to concede valid points in both. But neither seems to have definiively
 
resolved the issue of what to do with the Gitmo detainees or, for that matter, with
 
future terrorists who may be similarly captured on the battlefields in Afghanistan or 
 
Pakistan. And those are the questions Americans want answers to.
 
   It would be logistically impossible and fiscally prohibitive to launch FBI
 
investigations and Justice Department prosecutions for each future detainee. It
 
simply can't be done. So do we (a) just shoot them where they stand, (b) bring
 
them home and incarcerate them in our prisons where they may escape or live
 
out their years on the taxpayer dole, or (c) re-name Guantanamo Bay or build
 
someplace else just like it? Each alternative involves significant moral, fiscal,
 
legal and logistical drawbacks. So what's the plan?
 
   Further, it is well known that a significant percentage of those already released
 
from Gitmo, not the worst of the worst who remain there now, have returned to
 
the field, striving to kill American soldiers. So exactly how many American lives
 
is the "moral high ground" worth? A hundred, five-hundred, ten thousand, another
 
9/11? It's a question that needs answering.
 
   And since we have disavowed "harsh interrogation" as a means of extracting
 
information from captured terrorists, what is the alternative plan? Obama talks
 
about "more traditonal means," although his lack of military and intelligence
 
background hardly inspires confidence in such a judgment, and those means
 
are uncomfortably vague. While the notion that the "international community"
 
will think better of us may have limited merit, the idea that Muslim contries
 
will do so while we continue killing or detaining brother Muslims in combat is
 
highly doubtful, and the premise that radicalized terrorists will be more likely
 
to lay down their arms is plain preposterous.
 
   So it seems that the premature (i.e., without a plan) decision to shut down
 
Gitmo is a symbolic gesture, a gigantic public relations stunt in support of
 
Obama's hat-in-hand mea culpa approach to foreign diplomacy. It has caused
 
an incredible mess, pitting congress against itself and further dividing American
 
opinion and may, depending on whathappens to the detainees, put Americans
 
further at risk. And it may well be that seizing the "moral high ground," if such
 
exists in situations such as this one, ends up sinking America up to the eyebrows
 
in a swamp devoid of common sense.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

LIBERAL FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY

 
   Why do conservatives habitually point out that liberals just don't get it when it
 
comes to protecting America? The claim is, of course, based on decisions made
 
by past Democratic presidents (FDR, Carter, Clinton, et al) that had disastrous
 
consequences for America's national security. But the criticism, like the root
 
cause. runs considerably deeper than a few executive blunders. It is traceable
 
to a flaw endemic to the liberal understanding of the world.
 
   The flaw begins not abroad, but at home, where liberals support a pervasive
 
culture of absolute permissiveness. If people want to have or perform abortions,
 
it's their own business. If illegal immigrants swarm across our borders in violation
 
of our laws, perhaps they're just bad laws. Why bother chasing them down, arresting,
 
prosecuting and deporting them? If ACORN wants to engage in serial voter registration
 
fraud, so what? They represent the disenfranchised, so cut them some slack. If
 
presidential candidates want to associate with criminals and other shady characters,
 
well, it's a free country. We can't, after all, have suspicion, let alone guilt by
 
association.
 
   All this is abetted by the liberal media and the American Civil Liberties
 
Union who combine to mock the law, the Constitution, God and religion
 
thereby cutting the ground from under any moral or legal absolutes. Relativism.
 
Amorality on a national scale. Roght and wrong are out the window. This, then,
 
clears the way for every man to do what is right in his own eyes -- unless, of course,
 
it runs contrary to liberal dogma. In that case offenders will be stigmatized,
 
ostracized and perhaps even prosecuted. In such a world the criminals are the
 
victims, and the victims and their champions are the crminals. As insane as it may
 
be, that is the direction in which liberal poicy is driving the United States of America.
 
   With the ground cut from under objectivty, it is then a simple extension to
 
conduct America's relations with foreign powers on the basis of feelings. If we
 
like them, then our actions must be directed at making them feel good. If they don't
 
like us, then that must be in some way our fault. Public repentance, groveling and
 
subservience to the so-called "community of nations" automatically follows. That
 
has been a core element of liberal dogma for decades, and it is undeniably being
 
played out on an international scale by the current administration.
 
   A third plank in the liberal policy platform, though not one that liberals even
 
remotely acknowledge is extreme naivete about the world and human nature.
 
Ignoring the lessons of history (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, etc.) they
 
continue in the illusion that if we play nice so will the rest of the world. Believing
 
that men are basically good, they foolishly think that they hold the key to bringing
 
out the best in every man and nation, something they have yet to demonstrate. So if
 
we are nice to Iran and North Korea, surely they won't persist in their foolish
 
pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. If we try to understand Muslims better,
 
surely they won't fly any more planes into our buildings or try to blow up
 
airports
 bridges and tunnels in America. If the Israelis will just open the borders
 
to Gaza, surely Hamas will stop smuggling weapons in and raining down rockets
 
on Israeli citizens. You see how it goes. The question is, do you believe any of
 
it? Liberals do! And their foreign policy is based on it. (By the way, the extreme
 
logical extension of this belief is unilateral disarmament. If we give up our nukes
 
surely the rest of the world will too).
 
   Relativism, appeasement and non-confrontation -- these are the philosophical
 
underpinnings of the liberal view ragarding how America can "just get along"
 
with the rest of the world. Before you get all teary-eyed and start singing Kumbayah,
 
remember that it was precisely such policies that allowed Hitler to conquer all
 
of Europe and perpetuate the atrocities of Auschwitz, Dachau, Belsen and the
 
other death camps. It is such a policy that allowed Stalin to create and arm
 
Communist Russio. It will also ineviatbly lead to Iran and North Korea threatening
 
the world with thermonuclear hell and Muslim extremists launching attacks on
 
American soil that will make 9/11 look like a tea party.
 
   If you believe that there is an important difference between right and wrong,
 
legal and illegal then you are no true liberal. If you think that trash-talking
 
America and becoming "citizens of the world" may not be in the country's best
 
interests, then you certainly don' fit in with the liberal crowd. And if you
 
believe that the systematic weakening of the American military, the dismantling
 
of our intelligence services and fiddling while Tehran and Pyongyang build bombs
 
may not lead to a safer America, then you are no liberal. So then what are you?
 
What DO you believe? And more to the point, what are you going to do about
 
it the next time elections are gearing up. Stay silent and at home and the liberals
 
will keep right on doing what they're doing. By now, you can figure out the rest.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »