Check out this invaluable link:
FLEX YOUR RIGHTS at flexyourrights.org
Use them, or get them taken away.
Peace-
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
INTERESTING ARTICLE FROM THE TELEGRAPH REGARDING ILLEGALITY OF IRAQ WAR IN 2001
As most of you know, I supported George Bush et al regarding the war in Iraq. When I finally opened my eyes to the facts regarding WMD and the "war on terror," it was too late, we were mired ass deep and then some in Iraq.
what I find extraordinary is the fact that the Brits knew it was BS from the start, and did nothing. Now they have the blood of the dead in Iraq on their hands, and me and millions of others have the blood of kids and families on our hands...Oh to turn back the clock, right?
Peace-
From telegraph.co.uk:
By James Kirkup and Gordon RaynerPublished: 4:48PM GMT 24 Nov 2009
On its opening day of public hearings, Sir John Chilcot’s public inquiry into the invasion heard that British diplomats heard the “drumbeat” of war emanating from Washington even before the September 11 terrorist attacks.
The inquiry into the war, which cost 179 lives, opened yesterday with a promise from Sir John, a former Whitehall mandarin, to "get to the heart of what happened" and "not shy away" from criticising anyone who made mistakes.
The first day of the inquiry in central London was attended by several relatives of service personnel killed in Iraq. Outside, a small number of protesters gathered, several with fake blood on their hands accusing Tony Blair, the former prime minister of war crimes.
Inside, the inquiry’s questioning focussed on British policy towards Iraq in 2001, the year George W Bush became US president.
Sir William Patey, head of Middle East policy at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at the time, told the inquiry that he wrote a briefing paper on the options for Iraqi policy.
“We had at the end the regime-change option,” he said, “We dismissed that at the time as having no basis in law.”
Sir William said that the UK knew that some in the new US administration wanted to topple Saddam. "We were aware of the drum beats from Washington. Our policy was to stay away from that," he said.
The inquiry heard that in 2001, the settled view of the UK government was that attacking Iraq would have been illegal under international law.
Sir Peter Ricketts, then the political director at the FCO, told the inquiry: "We quite clearly distanced our self from regime change. It was clear that was something there would not be any legal base for."
The diplomats’ evidence will focus attention on the decisions that led Mr Blair to change Britain’s policy and support the military action that removed Saddam in 2003.
Sir Peter, who also chaired the Joint Intelligence Committee, said that only weeks after the September 11 attacks, US officials began to discuss “phase two of the war on terrorism,” shifting their attention from Afghanistan to Iraq.
“We heard people in Washington suggesting that there might be some link between Saddam and [Osama] Bin Laden.” he said. “We began to get that sort of voice early on.”
Officials suggested that it was the September 11 attacks and the events that followed had ultimately shifted the British view.
In 2001, Britain and the US were committed to a policy of containing Saddam, through economic sanctions, restricting his oil sales through the oil-for-food programme, and the imposition of no-fly zones in southern and northern Iraq.
The diplomats told the inquiry that the containment policy was failing in 2001, but it could have remained viable if the United Nations had agreed to new "smart sanctions" on Saddam and the return of UN weapons inspectors.
The September attacks changed that, Sir Peter said. "I think if 9/11 had not happened, we would have remained convinced that a strengthened sanctions regime, tightened, narrowed, was the right way to go and we would have continued to push to get weapons inspectors back in.”
Simon Webb, the former policy chief at the Ministry of Defence, told the inquiry that the September attacks increased Britain’s concerns about the possibility of terrorist groups obtained weapons of mass destruction from a regime like Saddam’s.
After the attacks, he said, “the focus didn’t shift to regime change, the focus shifted to
WMD. In order to order to deal with the WMD problem in Iraq, you would probably end up having to push Saddam out. That was the sequence of events. It wasn’t hopping straight to regime change.”
what I find extraordinary is the fact that the Brits knew it was BS from the start, and did nothing. Now they have the blood of the dead in Iraq on their hands, and me and millions of others have the blood of kids and families on our hands...Oh to turn back the clock, right?
Peace-
From telegraph.co.uk:
By James Kirkup and Gordon RaynerPublished: 4:48PM GMT 24 Nov 2009
On its opening day of public hearings, Sir John Chilcot’s public inquiry into the invasion heard that British diplomats heard the “drumbeat” of war emanating from Washington even before the September 11 terrorist attacks.
The inquiry into the war, which cost 179 lives, opened yesterday with a promise from Sir John, a former Whitehall mandarin, to "get to the heart of what happened" and "not shy away" from criticising anyone who made mistakes.
The first day of the inquiry in central London was attended by several relatives of service personnel killed in Iraq. Outside, a small number of protesters gathered, several with fake blood on their hands accusing Tony Blair, the former prime minister of war crimes.
Inside, the inquiry’s questioning focussed on British policy towards Iraq in 2001, the year George W Bush became US president.
Sir William Patey, head of Middle East policy at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at the time, told the inquiry that he wrote a briefing paper on the options for Iraqi policy.
“We had at the end the regime-change option,” he said, “We dismissed that at the time as having no basis in law.”
Sir William said that the UK knew that some in the new US administration wanted to topple Saddam. "We were aware of the drum beats from Washington. Our policy was to stay away from that," he said.
The inquiry heard that in 2001, the settled view of the UK government was that attacking Iraq would have been illegal under international law.
Sir Peter Ricketts, then the political director at the FCO, told the inquiry: "We quite clearly distanced our self from regime change. It was clear that was something there would not be any legal base for."
The diplomats’ evidence will focus attention on the decisions that led Mr Blair to change Britain’s policy and support the military action that removed Saddam in 2003.
Sir Peter, who also chaired the Joint Intelligence Committee, said that only weeks after the September 11 attacks, US officials began to discuss “phase two of the war on terrorism,” shifting their attention from Afghanistan to Iraq.
“We heard people in Washington suggesting that there might be some link between Saddam and [Osama] Bin Laden.” he said. “We began to get that sort of voice early on.”
Officials suggested that it was the September 11 attacks and the events that followed had ultimately shifted the British view.
In 2001, Britain and the US were committed to a policy of containing Saddam, through economic sanctions, restricting his oil sales through the oil-for-food programme, and the imposition of no-fly zones in southern and northern Iraq.
The diplomats told the inquiry that the containment policy was failing in 2001, but it could have remained viable if the United Nations had agreed to new "smart sanctions" on Saddam and the return of UN weapons inspectors.
The September attacks changed that, Sir Peter said. "I think if 9/11 had not happened, we would have remained convinced that a strengthened sanctions regime, tightened, narrowed, was the right way to go and we would have continued to push to get weapons inspectors back in.”
Simon Webb, the former policy chief at the Ministry of Defence, told the inquiry that the September attacks increased Britain’s concerns about the possibility of terrorist groups obtained weapons of mass destruction from a regime like Saddam’s.
After the attacks, he said, “the focus didn’t shift to regime change, the focus shifted to
WMD. In order to order to deal with the WMD problem in Iraq, you would probably end up having to push Saddam out. That was the sequence of events. It wasn’t hopping straight to regime change.”
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
ANOTHER HURDLE JUMPED FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA
It seems the American Medical Association is getting on board and calling for a reclassification of marijuana. It remains on the list as a Schedule I drug, the same as heroin. So, courtesy of the LA Times, here is a tidbit, you can catch the whole article here.
Medical marijuana gets a boost from major doctors group
The American Medical Assn. changes its policy to promote clinical research and development of cannabis-based medicines and alternative delivery methods.
By John Hoeffel
November 11, 2009
The American Medical Assn. on Tuesday urged the federal government to reconsider its classification of marijuana as a dangerous drug with no accepted medical use, a significant shift that puts the prestigious group behind calls for more research.
The nation's largest physicians organization, with about 250,000 member doctors, the AMA has maintained since 1997 that marijuana should remain a Schedule I controlled substance, the most restrictive category, which also includes heroin and LSD.
In changing its policy, the group said its goal was to clear the way to conduct clinical research, develop cannabis-based medicines and devise alternative ways to deliver the drug.
The decision by the organization's delegates at a meeting in Houston marks another step in the evolving view of marijuana, which an AMA report notes was once linked by the federal government to homicidal mania. Since California voters approved the use of medical marijuana in 1996, marijuana has moved steadily into the cultural mainstream spurred by the growing awareness that it can have beneficial effects for some chronically ill people.
This year, the Obama administration sped up that drift when it ordered federal narcotics agents not to arrest medical-marijuana users and providers who follow state laws. Polls show broadening support for marijuana legalization.
Thirteen states allow the use of medical marijuana, and about a dozen more have considered it this year.
It's nice to be on the West Coast...Total legalization, now.
Peace-
Mike
Medical marijuana gets a boost from major doctors group
The American Medical Assn. changes its policy to promote clinical research and development of cannabis-based medicines and alternative delivery methods.
By John Hoeffel
November 11, 2009
The American Medical Assn. on Tuesday urged the federal government to reconsider its classification of marijuana as a dangerous drug with no accepted medical use, a significant shift that puts the prestigious group behind calls for more research.
The nation's largest physicians organization, with about 250,000 member doctors, the AMA has maintained since 1997 that marijuana should remain a Schedule I controlled substance, the most restrictive category, which also includes heroin and LSD.
In changing its policy, the group said its goal was to clear the way to conduct clinical research, develop cannabis-based medicines and devise alternative ways to deliver the drug.
The decision by the organization's delegates at a meeting in Houston marks another step in the evolving view of marijuana, which an AMA report notes was once linked by the federal government to homicidal mania. Since California voters approved the use of medical marijuana in 1996, marijuana has moved steadily into the cultural mainstream spurred by the growing awareness that it can have beneficial effects for some chronically ill people.
This year, the Obama administration sped up that drift when it ordered federal narcotics agents not to arrest medical-marijuana users and providers who follow state laws. Polls show broadening support for marijuana legalization.
Thirteen states allow the use of medical marijuana, and about a dozen more have considered it this year.
It's nice to be on the West Coast...Total legalization, now.
Peace-
Mike
Monday, November 9, 2009
WELL "IT WAS TWENTY YEARS AGO TODAY..."
This is a Mini-Documentary done by a Berliner...It is excellent.
Peace-
Mike
Peace-
Mike
Sunday, November 8, 2009
PROFOUND DVD EVERYONE SHOULD WATCH: "THE ANGRY EYE" WITH JANE ELLIOTT
A week or so ago in my Communications class I had the pleasure of watching the short video, "The Angry Eye" with Jane Elliott.
Jane Elliot gained notoriety after Dr. King was shot in Memphis in 1968.
She began a blue eye/brown eye exercise that segregated her all white third grade class (according to Wikipedia she did not see a Black person until she was nineteen,) in tiny Riceville, Iowa into two groups: The Blue Eyes, the Superior Group, and The Brown Eyes, the Inferior Group. She had the "brownies" wear neck collars to further set them apart.
The response was stunning. The blue eyed kids were told the brownies were inferior because of their eye color, and as a result of their eye pigmentation they were unable to learn at the same level, they were unable to hold jobs, and the blue eyes should lower expectations for the brownies and then castigate them for not doing better, etc...
It didn't take long and the blue eyed kids were bossy, arrogant, and mean to the brown eyed kids, and the blue eyes actually began to do better academically, while the brownies suffered, and even brown-eyed kids that were excelling in class saw their grades and their confidence slip.
I watched a version of the exercise that was filmed on a college campus in the United States that involved young college students, and it blew my mind. The reaction from the white students was predictable yet unreal nonetheless...I believe this should be a required video in every school in the United States, it is that good, and it is that necessary.
The video that I posted is not from the vid I saw in class, however, it is just as poignant as the one I saw...we will be investing in these videos as time goes by, take the time to watch the video.
Some links:
Wiki
Jane Elliott website
IMDB -The Internet Movie Database
Peace-
Mike
Jane Elliot gained notoriety after Dr. King was shot in Memphis in 1968.
She began a blue eye/brown eye exercise that segregated her all white third grade class (according to Wikipedia she did not see a Black person until she was nineteen,) in tiny Riceville, Iowa into two groups: The Blue Eyes, the Superior Group, and The Brown Eyes, the Inferior Group. She had the "brownies" wear neck collars to further set them apart.
The response was stunning. The blue eyed kids were told the brownies were inferior because of their eye color, and as a result of their eye pigmentation they were unable to learn at the same level, they were unable to hold jobs, and the blue eyes should lower expectations for the brownies and then castigate them for not doing better, etc...
It didn't take long and the blue eyed kids were bossy, arrogant, and mean to the brown eyed kids, and the blue eyes actually began to do better academically, while the brownies suffered, and even brown-eyed kids that were excelling in class saw their grades and their confidence slip.
I watched a version of the exercise that was filmed on a college campus in the United States that involved young college students, and it blew my mind. The reaction from the white students was predictable yet unreal nonetheless...I believe this should be a required video in every school in the United States, it is that good, and it is that necessary.
The video that I posted is not from the vid I saw in class, however, it is just as poignant as the one I saw...we will be investing in these videos as time goes by, take the time to watch the video.
Some links:
Wiki
Jane Elliott website
IMDB -The Internet Movie Database
Peace-
Mike
ISLAM IN AMERICA: WHEN AMERICAN STUPIDITY SHINES BRIGHTLY
I am working on securing a series of interviews from a local Imam. In light of the shooting in Texas at Fort Hood, I thought it would be in my best interest, my family's best interest, and the best interest of those I will interact with in the future to have a better understanding of Islam.
I read a write up about Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged shooter, on MSNBC, and it's rather disturbing.
It is not disturbing in the sense that most Americans, especially white Americans would think, you know the type Searchers: "That guys a Muslim...I betcha he's gots him some bombs and guns and I bet he's a-fixin to blow up (insert local shitbox .50 cent-draft-night-on-tuesdays bar here.) No, read the excerpt, the disturbing part is the local shit kickers giving a man shit who is trying to mind his own business and serve his Country at the same time.
"'Everyone else just sat down there and drunk their beer, and looked
at him, and giggled at him,' the woman said starting to cry. 'They
just would laugh at him when he walked down with his Muslim clothes...he was
mistreated. He was all alone. He went to his apartment there and was
all alone.'"I know the type. I used to go to church with the worthless idiots, and Mrs. Searchers entire range of kinfolk in Arkansas are precisely this way. Redneck, and total pussies when it comes to individual confrontation. Like Mrs. Searchers brothers, Hank and Samuel Chris Flanagin, and the racist coward Pat Flanagin.
In addition to verbal harassment, Major Hasan also had to deal with rednecks vandalizing his vehicle.
What cracks me up about the worthless red necks is Major Hasan is educated; he is an Army Psychiatrist. That means he is a Doctor. MD. And the rednecks outside their crappy little apartment units probably have less than a GED, probably have less than a mouthful of teeth, and probably have the equivalent of a 9th grade education.
The only People I am prejudiced against and the only People I believe should be sent to re-education camps are Rednecks. No mercy, either change or be eradicated.
So, I am trying to secure at least one interview with the folks that run the local mosque. I'll keep ya posted. Peace,
Mike
Thanks Washington Post and MSNBC
Saturday, October 24, 2009
NEW JERSEY DEBATING MEDICAL MARIJAUNA
Good news out of New Jersey, I was unaware of this until I got a tip from a Searcher in New Jersey. Thanks NJ, fight the good fight, the enlightened ones know that Marijuana is so much more benign than Alcohol which kills upward of 100,000 people a year, and that's without vehicle deaths...it is time to legalize Marijuana, as well as row crop hemp, forget about all of these timber companies raping and pillaging the US, especially here in the PacNorthwest. Here is the story:
TRENTON Ð Jack O'Brien feels shooting pain in his hands and feet that can become so intense that it wakes him out of a sound sleep.
The Cumberland County resident said the excruciating pain, resulting from a birth defect that also left him without fingers or toes, travels along his nerves all the way to his head. He takes pain medications but worries they will damage his liver or kidneys. And he says prescribed drugs leave him with little ability to function normally.
O'Brien has found that the one thing that does provide relief, without the often demobilizing side effects of pain pills, is marijuana. But he says he rarely uses it because he fears being arrested.
"I'm not a pot-head, I'm not a partier," the 54-year-old Commercial Township resident said. "But I need to live a quality of life that's better than (just) laying on the couch."
O'Brien and other New Jersey residents suffering from serious medical conditions could soon have the legal ability to use marijuana for pain relief.
O'Brien and other New Jersey residents suffering from serious medical conditions could soon have the legal ability to use marijuana for pain relief.
Legislators are considering a controversial measure that would make New Jersey the 14th state in the nation to legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes.
The Senate has already passed the bill. The Assembly Health and Human Services Committee approved the legislation Thursday by a vote of 8 to 1, with two abstentions, after amending it to further limit access to marijuana.
The bill would give residents, with their treating doctor's recommendation, the ability to obtain a registration card from the Department of Health and Senior Services to use marijuana for medicinal purposes without the possibility of arrest, prosecution or penalties.
The drug could be obtained from one of at least six "alternative treatment centers," facilities that would be designated to grow and distribute the drug.
The initial version of the bill also allowed for state-registered users to grow up to six marijuana plants at home, but the Assembly committee amended the legislation Thursday to prohibit home-growing after hearing concerns from critics, who said it would make marijuana too widely available and vulnerable to abuse...
And that's the way the story ends, and we all know that last statement about availability and abuse is total bullshit, it's a throwback from the 1930's, and William Randolph Hearst's successful smear campaign that went with ridiculous propaganda films like "Reefer Madness" ("Tell Your Children" is the original, Reefer Madness is the re-issue title)
Peace-
Mike
OUTRAGE IN SAUDI ARABIA
I read this on MSNBC, I'm currently unaware if other news outlets have it online...So it seems a Saudi Arabian female journalist, Rozana al-Yami, and a Saudi man, Mazan Abdul Jawad had a t.v. show on in Lebanon that dealt with sex and sexual issues. Evidently this is a major fuckup in Saudi Arabia, because a Saudi court has sentenced the woman to 60 whip lashes, and the man to 5 years in prison and 1,000 lashes.
What in the fuck are we doing dealing with these people? George Bush was surely bent over for these barbarian religious freaks, and even though 19 of the hijackers were Saudi, Bush invaded Afghanistan, and Iraq, completely ignoring the fact that Saudi Arabia teaches and trains terrorists.
Another argument for renewable energy sources, cut the Saudis out of our money pool, until they can get their ridiculous asses out of the 11th century.
Lest you think, Evangelical Righties, I have eased up on you, forget about it. I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that if the Religious Right had their way, the Pat Robertsons, The Jerry Falwells the Pat and Chris Flanagins, the Sarah Palins, (you get the picture) they would run this country in the same fashion.
I have actually had people, religious people, in Arkansas (my dad in Illinois is no different and just as worthless) say that there should still be public whippings and executions for adultery and having sex before one is married. And this has been in the last decade. Make no mistake, I am out to eradicate the Religious Right in the United States, and Evangelical (pentecostal) religion, I know that these movements are no different than radical Islamic Caliphates. I am coming for you, Righties...
Below is an excerpt from the story and you can read the whole story here.
Saudi female journalist sentenced to 60 lashes
Program on Lebanese cable TV dealt with man's frank sex talk
via AP, through MSNBC
Peace-
Mike
What in the fuck are we doing dealing with these people? George Bush was surely bent over for these barbarian religious freaks, and even though 19 of the hijackers were Saudi, Bush invaded Afghanistan, and Iraq, completely ignoring the fact that Saudi Arabia teaches and trains terrorists.
Another argument for renewable energy sources, cut the Saudis out of our money pool, until they can get their ridiculous asses out of the 11th century.
Lest you think, Evangelical Righties, I have eased up on you, forget about it. I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that if the Religious Right had their way, the Pat Robertsons, The Jerry Falwells the Pat and Chris Flanagins, the Sarah Palins, (you get the picture) they would run this country in the same fashion.
I have actually had people, religious people, in Arkansas (my dad in Illinois is no different and just as worthless) say that there should still be public whippings and executions for adultery and having sex before one is married. And this has been in the last decade. Make no mistake, I am out to eradicate the Religious Right in the United States, and Evangelical (pentecostal) religion, I know that these movements are no different than radical Islamic Caliphates. I am coming for you, Righties...
Below is an excerpt from the story and you can read the whole story here.
Saudi female journalist sentenced to 60 lashes
Program on Lebanese cable TV dealt with man's frank sex talk
via AP, through MSNBC
We, as Americans, owe it to ourselves and our ideals to hammer down on the Saudi's and express our outrage by calling our Senators and Reps., as well as the White House and news outlets. While we are doing that, hammer down on the Religious Right in the US, because, as Chris Matthews said, there isn's anything closer in the US to radical Islam than the Religious Right. Conservadems are included in that blanket statement as far as I'm concerned...RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - A Saudi court on Saturday convicted a
female journalist for her involvement in a TV show, in which a Saudi man
publicly talked about sex, and sentenced her to 60 lashes.Rozanna al-Yami is believed to be the first Saudi woman
journalist to be given such a punishment. The charges against her included
involvement in the preparation of the program and advertising the segment on the
Internet.In the program, which aired in July on the Lebanese LBC
satellite channel, Mazen Abdul-Jawad appears to describe an
active sex life and shows sex toys that were blurred by the station. The same
court sentenced Abdul-Jawad earlier this month to five years in jail and 1,000
lashes.
Peace-
Mike
Friday, October 23, 2009
EXCELLENT COMMERCIAL FROM MEDIA MATTERS REGARDING THE FOX NEWS PROPAGANDA MACHINE
Most of you know I watched Fox News for years before I became enlightened. I was watching the Ed Show and he aired a clip from the vid below. It's five minutes or so, and well worth the time. It is a very concise rundown of propaganda promoted on Fox since we elected President Obama:
Peace-
Peace-
RELIGIOUS RIGHT MOST LIKE TALIBAN IN THE UNITED STATES: CHRIS MATTHEWS OF MSNBC
I caught the video below on MSNBC, it's about 14 minutes long, but I found a 50 second clip on Huffington Post of the end of the segment with Ron Reagan and Frank Gaffney, they were discussing, of sorts, the situation in Afghanistan.
The focus of most has been on the insult Gaffney, a neocon, threw at Ron Reagan, the son of President Reagan and a radio host on Air America, you'll hear it at the end, Gaffney tells Reagan, "Your father would be ashamed of you."
Totally below the belt, and you have to expect that from a neocon, but the thing that really perked up my ears was Chris Matthews' comment at the end, I'll paraphrase it-the religious right are the closest thing we have to the Taliban in the United States, and I couldn't agree more. In parts of the U.S., the "religious right" doesn't necessarily mean those with Republican leanings. I know plenty of Democrats that are racist hatemongers.
Here's the brief write up from HuffPo:
Peace-
Right-wing neoconservative Frank Gaffney went on "Hardball" Thursday night to defend Dick Cheney but ended up just insulting his fellow guest.
After a long exchange with Air America host Ron Reagan on the war in Afghanistan, Gaffney gave up on arguing and went for a personal attack. "Your father would be ashamed of you," he told Reagan, whose father was the late president.
"Oh, Frank," Reagan replied, "you better watch your mouth about that, Frank.
And here's a brief write-up about Frank Gaffney from Steve Benen from the Washington Monthly:
Now, Gaffney probably knows he crossed a line of decency; in fact that probably why he said what he said. Gaffney's a right-wing nutjob whose job it is to say ridiculous things.
And that's really what matters here. Gaffney's insane rhetoric isn't the problem; the fact that he was invited onto national television (again) to share his insane rhetoric is the problem.
Gaffney probably isn't a household name, but inside the media establishment, he's a pretty well known figure, as evidenced by his joint appearance with Dick Cheney on Wednesday night. And when offered a major media platform, Gaffney takes full advantage.
In April, for example, Gaffney appeared on MSNBC to argue that whenever President Obama uses the word "respect" in foreign policy, the word is "code for those who adhere to Sharia that we will submit to Sharia." He wasn't kidding.
In June, Gaffney wrote a column insisting that President Obama might really be a Muslim. In March, Gaffney argued that "evidence" exists connecting Saddam Hussein to 9/11, the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, and the Oklahoma City bombing. Last September, Gaffney argued that Sarah Palin has learned foreign policy through "osmosis," by living in Alaska. (Bold is mine)
He's argued that U.S. forces really did find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but the media covered it up. He's used made-up quotes and recommended "hanging" Democratic officials critical of the Bush administration's Iraq policy. He even believes there's "evidence" to support the "Birthers," and once recommended a military strike on Al Jazeera headquarters.
So why is it, exactly, that MSNBC's "Hardball" invited Gaffney on to talk about foreign policy? What is it the viewing public can learn from listening to his unhinged perspective?
To be sure, Gaffney is certainly entitled to believe obvious lunacy, but that doesn't mean he deserves a microphone or the opportunity to convince a national television audience that his lunacy is legitimate.
Honestly, is there nothing conservatives can say that would force them from polite company? Just how nutty must far-right activists be before they're no longer invited to share their ridiculous ideas?
The right wing is getting more and more in the outfield, if any "wing" should be closely observed it is the right. And do not forget: Right Wing does not necessarily mean Republican. I cannot stress that enough.
Peace-
The focus of most has been on the insult Gaffney, a neocon, threw at Ron Reagan, the son of President Reagan and a radio host on Air America, you'll hear it at the end, Gaffney tells Reagan, "Your father would be ashamed of you."
Totally below the belt, and you have to expect that from a neocon, but the thing that really perked up my ears was Chris Matthews' comment at the end, I'll paraphrase it-the religious right are the closest thing we have to the Taliban in the United States, and I couldn't agree more. In parts of the U.S., the "religious right" doesn't necessarily mean those with Republican leanings. I know plenty of Democrats that are racist hatemongers.
Here's the brief write up from HuffPo:
Peace-
Right-wing neoconservative Frank Gaffney went on "Hardball" Thursday night to defend Dick Cheney but ended up just insulting his fellow guest.
After a long exchange with Air America host Ron Reagan on the war in Afghanistan, Gaffney gave up on arguing and went for a personal attack. "Your father would be ashamed of you," he told Reagan, whose father was the late president.
"Oh, Frank," Reagan replied, "you better watch your mouth about that, Frank.
And here's a brief write-up about Frank Gaffney from Steve Benen from the Washington Monthly:
Now, Gaffney probably knows he crossed a line of decency; in fact that probably why he said what he said. Gaffney's a right-wing nutjob whose job it is to say ridiculous things.
And that's really what matters here. Gaffney's insane rhetoric isn't the problem; the fact that he was invited onto national television (again) to share his insane rhetoric is the problem.
Gaffney probably isn't a household name, but inside the media establishment, he's a pretty well known figure, as evidenced by his joint appearance with Dick Cheney on Wednesday night. And when offered a major media platform, Gaffney takes full advantage.
In April, for example, Gaffney appeared on MSNBC to argue that whenever President Obama uses the word "respect" in foreign policy, the word is "code for those who adhere to Sharia that we will submit to Sharia." He wasn't kidding.
In June, Gaffney wrote a column insisting that President Obama might really be a Muslim. In March, Gaffney argued that "evidence" exists connecting Saddam Hussein to 9/11, the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, and the Oklahoma City bombing. Last September, Gaffney argued that Sarah Palin has learned foreign policy through "osmosis," by living in Alaska. (Bold is mine)
He's argued that U.S. forces really did find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but the media covered it up. He's used made-up quotes and recommended "hanging" Democratic officials critical of the Bush administration's Iraq policy. He even believes there's "evidence" to support the "Birthers," and once recommended a military strike on Al Jazeera headquarters.
So why is it, exactly, that MSNBC's "Hardball" invited Gaffney on to talk about foreign policy? What is it the viewing public can learn from listening to his unhinged perspective?
To be sure, Gaffney is certainly entitled to believe obvious lunacy, but that doesn't mean he deserves a microphone or the opportunity to convince a national television audience that his lunacy is legitimate.
Honestly, is there nothing conservatives can say that would force them from polite company? Just how nutty must far-right activists be before they're no longer invited to share their ridiculous ideas?
The right wing is getting more and more in the outfield, if any "wing" should be closely observed it is the right. And do not forget: Right Wing does not necessarily mean Republican. I cannot stress that enough.
Peace-
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
ANOTHER DEFEAT FOR RIGHT WING STUPIDITY; ANOTHER VICTORY FOR MEDICAL MARIJAUNA PATIENTS
Of course you know I am in favor of the legalization of Marijuana. Not ALL drugs right-wingers, so calm the hell down. I have been a medical MJ patient, and I believe people would benefit from the use of herb. My parents were Cutty Sark Scotch addicts (alcoholics) they never left home without it. Whether we were heading to South Carolina, or Wisconsin, or wherever, that damn green bottle with the yellow label came with. No wonder I have had problems with alcohol.
Another comment: My mother was an individual that could have used marijuana. For instance, if she would have just smoked a joint instead of drinking, maybe she would not have slammed my head against walls so often. Maybe she wouldn't have pulled my hair out in tufts. Maybe she wouldn't have beat me and my sister with sticks or belts or hairbrushes or shoes. Maybe she wouldn't have slapped me in my pre-adolescent face so often. And Daddy-o, you lazy bastard, maybe if you smoked a little weed you would have insisted ole Barbara gotten some psychological counseling. Surely after your wife violently attacked your daughter at the dinner table that night when she was in 7th grade (but truth be told it was just another incident in a long line of years of out of control behavior by our mother and father)....and what did you do Stanny? Sit and watch and plaintively whine, "Barbaraaa."
Yes, my parents should have smoked weed, but they were all about obeying the law, except, of course, when it came to beating up their children.
Legalize it, period.
From the Philly Inquirer, Josh Meyer, L.A. Times, author
U.S. eases prosecutions on medical marijuana
WASHINGTON - The Obama administration told federal authorities yesterday not to arrest or prosecute medical-marijuana users and suppliers, paving the way for some states to move forward with plans to create officially sanctioned dispensaries to provide the drug as relief for a series of maladies.
The move by the Justice Department ended months of uncertainty over how far the Obama White House planned to go in reversing the Bush administration's stance on the issue, which held that authorities should continue to enforce federal drug laws even in states with medical-marijuana laws on the books
In new guidelines circulated yesterday, the Justice Department told prosecutors and federal drug agents that they had more important things to do than to arrest people as long as they were obeying the laws of states that allow some use or sale of medical marijuana.
In new guidelines circulated yesterday, the Justice Department told prosecutors and federal drug agents that they had more important things to do than to arrest people as long as they were obeying the laws of states that allow some use or sale of medical marijuana.
The move clarifies what some critics had said was an ambiguous position of the Obama administration, especially in California, where authorities raided numerous clinics and made arrests over the years. Some of those raids followed Obama's inauguration in January, after, as a presidential candidate, he had pledged to stop them.
The American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups welcomed the move as an important step toward a comprehensive national policy on medical marijuana because it will allow states to implement their own laws without fear of interference from the federal government.
In all, 13 states have some form of medical-marijuana laws. But some, like New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Michigan, have been reluctant to implement programs amid fears they would be struck down by courts or shut by authorities, said Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU's California-based Drug Law Reform Project.
In New Jersey, the state Senate approved a medical-marijuana bill in February, with bipartisan support. An amended version, tightened to address concerns that marijuana could become too readily available, awaits a floor vote in the state Assembly. If approved, it would return to the Senate for a second vote. Gov. Corzine has said he would sign the bill if the Legislature approves it.
Under the amended bill, the state would issue identification cards to patients diagnosed with a "debilitating medical condition." Those patients would be permitted to obtain marijuana from authorized nonprofit alternative-treatment centers, in person or via courier or delivery.
Roseanne Scotti, director of Drug Policy Alliance New Jersey, which favors medical marijuana, said of yesterday's Justice Department move: "We're thrilled.. . . We think it bodes very well for the future of medical marijuana in New Jersey."
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said the new guidelines were adopted, in part, because federal law enforcement agencies had limited resources and need them for more pressing priorities. One of those priorities is countering the spread of violent Mexican drug cartels, which use the vast profits from their marijuana sales in the United States to support other crimes, the guidelines say.
The new guidelines stress that authorities should go after those who improperly abuse or obtain medical marijuana or use clinics as a cover for drug dealing and other illegal activity.
In particular, the Justice memo urges authorities to pursue cases that involve violence, illegal use of firearms, sale of marijuana to minors, excessive financial gains, and ties to criminal enterprises.
The change in policy was criticized by many law enforcement advocates, and some conservative groups and members of Congress. (who gives a shit? that's my comment, not the author's)
Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said the decision undermined the administration's get-tough plan to attack the Mexican cartels, which he said were fueling drug-related violence along the U.S.-Mexico border.
One comment regarding Lamar Smith of Texas, in the Pacific Northwest, at least on the wet side of the mountains, all of our herb is local, it doesn't come from a Mexican cartel. We here in the PacNorth believe in local sustainability, supporting our local farmers, microbrewers, and small businesses, and smoking only the best around...
Peace-take care, HEALTH CARE FOR ALL NOW!
Mike
Another comment: My mother was an individual that could have used marijuana. For instance, if she would have just smoked a joint instead of drinking, maybe she would not have slammed my head against walls so often. Maybe she wouldn't have pulled my hair out in tufts. Maybe she wouldn't have beat me and my sister with sticks or belts or hairbrushes or shoes. Maybe she wouldn't have slapped me in my pre-adolescent face so often. And Daddy-o, you lazy bastard, maybe if you smoked a little weed you would have insisted ole Barbara gotten some psychological counseling. Surely after your wife violently attacked your daughter at the dinner table that night when she was in 7th grade (but truth be told it was just another incident in a long line of years of out of control behavior by our mother and father)....and what did you do Stanny? Sit and watch and plaintively whine, "Barbaraaa."
Yes, my parents should have smoked weed, but they were all about obeying the law, except, of course, when it came to beating up their children.
Legalize it, period.
From the Philly Inquirer, Josh Meyer, L.A. Times, author
U.S. eases prosecutions on medical marijuana
WASHINGTON - The Obama administration told federal authorities yesterday not to arrest or prosecute medical-marijuana users and suppliers, paving the way for some states to move forward with plans to create officially sanctioned dispensaries to provide the drug as relief for a series of maladies.
The move by the Justice Department ended months of uncertainty over how far the Obama White House planned to go in reversing the Bush administration's stance on the issue, which held that authorities should continue to enforce federal drug laws even in states with medical-marijuana laws on the books
In new guidelines circulated yesterday, the Justice Department told prosecutors and federal drug agents that they had more important things to do than to arrest people as long as they were obeying the laws of states that allow some use or sale of medical marijuana.
In new guidelines circulated yesterday, the Justice Department told prosecutors and federal drug agents that they had more important things to do than to arrest people as long as they were obeying the laws of states that allow some use or sale of medical marijuana.
The move clarifies what some critics had said was an ambiguous position of the Obama administration, especially in California, where authorities raided numerous clinics and made arrests over the years. Some of those raids followed Obama's inauguration in January, after, as a presidential candidate, he had pledged to stop them.
The American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups welcomed the move as an important step toward a comprehensive national policy on medical marijuana because it will allow states to implement their own laws without fear of interference from the federal government.
In all, 13 states have some form of medical-marijuana laws. But some, like New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Michigan, have been reluctant to implement programs amid fears they would be struck down by courts or shut by authorities, said Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU's California-based Drug Law Reform Project.
In New Jersey, the state Senate approved a medical-marijuana bill in February, with bipartisan support. An amended version, tightened to address concerns that marijuana could become too readily available, awaits a floor vote in the state Assembly. If approved, it would return to the Senate for a second vote. Gov. Corzine has said he would sign the bill if the Legislature approves it.
Under the amended bill, the state would issue identification cards to patients diagnosed with a "debilitating medical condition." Those patients would be permitted to obtain marijuana from authorized nonprofit alternative-treatment centers, in person or via courier or delivery.
Roseanne Scotti, director of Drug Policy Alliance New Jersey, which favors medical marijuana, said of yesterday's Justice Department move: "We're thrilled.. . . We think it bodes very well for the future of medical marijuana in New Jersey."
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said the new guidelines were adopted, in part, because federal law enforcement agencies had limited resources and need them for more pressing priorities. One of those priorities is countering the spread of violent Mexican drug cartels, which use the vast profits from their marijuana sales in the United States to support other crimes, the guidelines say.
The new guidelines stress that authorities should go after those who improperly abuse or obtain medical marijuana or use clinics as a cover for drug dealing and other illegal activity.
In particular, the Justice memo urges authorities to pursue cases that involve violence, illegal use of firearms, sale of marijuana to minors, excessive financial gains, and ties to criminal enterprises.
The change in policy was criticized by many law enforcement advocates, and some conservative groups and members of Congress. (who gives a shit? that's my comment, not the author's)
Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said the decision undermined the administration's get-tough plan to attack the Mexican cartels, which he said were fueling drug-related violence along the U.S.-Mexico border.
One comment regarding Lamar Smith of Texas, in the Pacific Northwest, at least on the wet side of the mountains, all of our herb is local, it doesn't come from a Mexican cartel. We here in the PacNorth believe in local sustainability, supporting our local farmers, microbrewers, and small businesses, and smoking only the best around...
Peace-take care, HEALTH CARE FOR ALL NOW!
Mike
Friday, October 9, 2009
REST IN PEACE DR. ERNESTO GUEVARA DE LA SERNA
Today, some 42 years ago, Che was killed at the hands of the U.S. and Bolivian Governments. He remains an icon, a physician, a father, a brother, an author, and a revolutionary. Rest in peace, Doctor Guevara
“Let me say, at the risk of seeming ridiculous, that the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love.” Che Guevara
“Let me say, at the risk of seeming ridiculous, that the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love.” Che Guevara
CONGRATULATIONS PRESIDENT OBAMA
Today Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. Let Rio have the Olympics; we have the President with the Peace Prize.
Peace-
Friday, October 2, 2009
WE MUST BECOME THE CHANGE WE WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD
Happy birthday Mohandas Karamchand Ghandi 10.2.1869-1.30.1948
Sunday, September 20, 2009
THE DEMON POSSESED BALWIN BROTHER (STEPHEN) APPEARED IN D.C.
The right wing oughta loves this- 'God Bless The Great White Right'-and all of the (my dad should love this)imps, John Boehner, Eric Cantor (when is he going to come out of the closet????) Carrie Prejean at the "values voter summit" as though no one has values unless they're banging their choir director...or has fake boobs, or can bring a gun to a Presidential Meeting...you should be proud right wing: now we all know how you operate, and we should make sure we watch you closely...
Peace-
Thursday, September 17, 2009
AND HERE'S A GOOD STORY-MAKE THE INSURANCE COMPANIES PAY UP
UPDATE: I DROPPED THE REST OF THE STORY, I'VE ADDED IT.
This is why health care reform is so desperately needed in the U.S. Please get in touch with your Congressperson for true and real reform...
The South Carolina Supreme Court has ordered an insurance company to pay $10 million for wrongly revoking the insurance policy of a 17-year-old college student after he tested positive for HIV. The court called the 2002 decision by the insurance company "reprehensible."
That appears to be the most an insurance company has ever been ordered to pay in a case involving the practice known as rescission, in which insurance companies retroactively cancel coverage for policyholders based on alleged misstatements - sometimes right after diagnoses of life-threatening diseases.
The ruling emerges from a conservative Southern state with one of the most pro-business climates in the country. And it comes as progressive Democrats on Capitol Hill are pressing for health care reforms, such as a public insurance option, that reflect wariness about the private insurance industry's motives.
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a lower court's verdict against Fortis Insurance, now known as Assurant. The trial jury had awarded the former college student, Jerome Mitchell, $15 million in punitive damages; the Supreme Court reduced that amount by $5 million.
Mitchell learned that he had HIV when, while heading to college, he donated blood. Fortis then rescinded his coverage, citing what turned out to be an erroneous note from a nurse in his medical records that indicated that he might have been diagnosed prior to his obtaining his insurance policy.
Before the cancellation of the policy, an underwriter working for Fortis wrote to a committee considering whether or not to rescind his policy: "Technically, we do not have the results of the HIV tests. This is the only entry in the medical records regarding HIV status. Is it sufficient?"
The underwriter's concerns were ignored and the rescission went forward.In the ruling, Chief Justice Jean Hoefer Toal wrote: "We find ample support in the record that Fortis' conduct was reprehensible ... Fortis demonstrated an indifference to Mitchell's life and a reckless disregard to his health and safety."
An investigation this summer by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and earlier ones by state regulators in California, New York and Connecticut, found that thousands of vulnerable and seriously ill policyholders have had their coverage canceled by many of the nation's largest insurance companies without any legal basis. The congressional committee found that three insurance companies alone made at least $300 million over five years from rescission. One of those three companies was Assurant.
In Febuary 2008, a private arbitration judge in Los Angeles ordered Health Net Inc. to pay more than $9 million to a breast cancer patient whose health insurance it revoked shortly after her diagnosis and while she was undergoing chemotherapy. The plaintiff in that case, Patsy Bates, a then-52-year-old grandmother and hair-salon owner, was unable to continue her chemotherapy for several months.
During the case, evidence emerged that Health Net had paid bonuses to employees to reward them based on the number of policyholders they had rescinded. The judge who awarded Bates the $9 million said in his decision: "It's difficult to imagine a policy more reprehensible than tying bonuses to encourage the rescission of health insurance that keeps the public well and alive."
William Shernoff, the attorney who represented Bates, said in an interview Wednesday that he was not unhappy that there was a new verdict larger than the one he won for Bates. "I am glad to see that the courts in other parts of the country are coming down hard on this reprehensible practice of dumping sick patients," he said. "It has been a practice going on decades, is widespread, and ruins lives."
Shernoff currently said he has more than 100 pending cases against California insurance companies on behalf of patients he alleges were wrongly rescinded. He said he has already settled about 90 similar cases over the last three years.
President Obama cited other cases of rescission in his recent speech before a joint session of Congress as a major reason that health reform is necessary.
Obama cited the case of a retired Texas nurse, Robin Beaton, who had her heath insurance canceled by her insurance company as she was about to undergo breast cancer surgery. As a result, Beaton had to delay her surgery for five months. In the interim, the size of the mass of her tumor had grown from 2 centimeters to 7 centimeters, greatly reducing her chances of survival.
A "woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne," the President asserted in his speech, "By the time she had insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more then doubled in size. This is heart breaking. It is wrong. And no one should be treated that way in the United States of America."
Obama wasn't exactly correct in his telling of Beaton's ordeal. Beaton's insurance was canceled because a doctor wrote that she potentially had a precancerous lesion on her face. Further investigation showed that she instead had acne. But even after her physicians pointed out the error, her insurance remained rescinded. Only with the help of her congressman, was she able to pressure her insurance company to pay for her breast cancer surgery--five months later. Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/insurance-company-must-pa_n_289841.html
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/insurance-company-must-pa_n_289841.html
Shut these bastards down...
Peace-
thanks to the HuffPo for the article.
This is why health care reform is so desperately needed in the U.S. Please get in touch with your Congressperson for true and real reform...
The South Carolina Supreme Court has ordered an insurance company to pay $10 million for wrongly revoking the insurance policy of a 17-year-old college student after he tested positive for HIV. The court called the 2002 decision by the insurance company "reprehensible."
That appears to be the most an insurance company has ever been ordered to pay in a case involving the practice known as rescission, in which insurance companies retroactively cancel coverage for policyholders based on alleged misstatements - sometimes right after diagnoses of life-threatening diseases.
The ruling emerges from a conservative Southern state with one of the most pro-business climates in the country. And it comes as progressive Democrats on Capitol Hill are pressing for health care reforms, such as a public insurance option, that reflect wariness about the private insurance industry's motives.
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a lower court's verdict against Fortis Insurance, now known as Assurant. The trial jury had awarded the former college student, Jerome Mitchell, $15 million in punitive damages; the Supreme Court reduced that amount by $5 million.
Mitchell learned that he had HIV when, while heading to college, he donated blood. Fortis then rescinded his coverage, citing what turned out to be an erroneous note from a nurse in his medical records that indicated that he might have been diagnosed prior to his obtaining his insurance policy.
Before the cancellation of the policy, an underwriter working for Fortis wrote to a committee considering whether or not to rescind his policy: "Technically, we do not have the results of the HIV tests. This is the only entry in the medical records regarding HIV status. Is it sufficient?"
The underwriter's concerns were ignored and the rescission went forward.In the ruling, Chief Justice Jean Hoefer Toal wrote: "We find ample support in the record that Fortis' conduct was reprehensible ... Fortis demonstrated an indifference to Mitchell's life and a reckless disregard to his health and safety."
An investigation this summer by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and earlier ones by state regulators in California, New York and Connecticut, found that thousands of vulnerable and seriously ill policyholders have had their coverage canceled by many of the nation's largest insurance companies without any legal basis. The congressional committee found that three insurance companies alone made at least $300 million over five years from rescission. One of those three companies was Assurant.
In Febuary 2008, a private arbitration judge in Los Angeles ordered Health Net Inc. to pay more than $9 million to a breast cancer patient whose health insurance it revoked shortly after her diagnosis and while she was undergoing chemotherapy. The plaintiff in that case, Patsy Bates, a then-52-year-old grandmother and hair-salon owner, was unable to continue her chemotherapy for several months.
During the case, evidence emerged that Health Net had paid bonuses to employees to reward them based on the number of policyholders they had rescinded. The judge who awarded Bates the $9 million said in his decision: "It's difficult to imagine a policy more reprehensible than tying bonuses to encourage the rescission of health insurance that keeps the public well and alive."
William Shernoff, the attorney who represented Bates, said in an interview Wednesday that he was not unhappy that there was a new verdict larger than the one he won for Bates. "I am glad to see that the courts in other parts of the country are coming down hard on this reprehensible practice of dumping sick patients," he said. "It has been a practice going on decades, is widespread, and ruins lives."
Shernoff currently said he has more than 100 pending cases against California insurance companies on behalf of patients he alleges were wrongly rescinded. He said he has already settled about 90 similar cases over the last three years.
President Obama cited other cases of rescission in his recent speech before a joint session of Congress as a major reason that health reform is necessary.
Obama cited the case of a retired Texas nurse, Robin Beaton, who had her heath insurance canceled by her insurance company as she was about to undergo breast cancer surgery. As a result, Beaton had to delay her surgery for five months. In the interim, the size of the mass of her tumor had grown from 2 centimeters to 7 centimeters, greatly reducing her chances of survival.
A "woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne," the President asserted in his speech, "By the time she had insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more then doubled in size. This is heart breaking. It is wrong. And no one should be treated that way in the United States of America."
Obama wasn't exactly correct in his telling of Beaton's ordeal. Beaton's insurance was canceled because a doctor wrote that she potentially had a precancerous lesion on her face. Further investigation showed that she instead had acne. But even after her physicians pointed out the error, her insurance remained rescinded. Only with the help of her congressman, was she able to pressure her insurance company to pay for her breast cancer surgery--five months later. Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/insurance-company-must-pa_n_289841.html
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/insurance-company-must-pa_n_289841.html
Shut these bastards down...
Peace-
thanks to the HuffPo for the article.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
I'M WITH RACHEL MADDOW-A PRO-PROMISCUITY ZEALOT. BEATS AMERICAN RIGHT WING CHRISTIANITY.
disclaimer: a catholic organizaton called her that. not far from flanagins christianity.
FINALLY THE CHRISTIANS IN THE UNITED STATES ARE CALLED OUT
It is about time. Check out Rachel Maddows show today.
Oh and by the way, American Christianity is utterly against Jesus' teaching. Not a big surprise. Fuck off American Right wing Christianity, it is no surprise that hate is espoused by your teachings, and by Pat Flanagins' "bible fund." Also, thanks Flanagins for giving me fodder, and trying to kill me.
Peace-and everybody cares...
fuck off pat flanagin and joe wilson...
come on with your punk ass, Pat, and Chris and hank yank yank and tasha, bring it.
Oh and by the way, American Christianity is utterly against Jesus' teaching. Not a big surprise. Fuck off American Right wing Christianity, it is no surprise that hate is espoused by your teachings, and by Pat Flanagins' "bible fund." Also, thanks Flanagins for giving me fodder, and trying to kill me.
Peace-and everybody cares...
fuck off pat flanagin and joe wilson...
come on with your punk ass, Pat, and Chris and hank yank yank and tasha, bring it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
