Monday, February 13, 2012


It's a stretch of the imagination to accept the premise  that billion dollar corporations would manipulate information to gain an advantage and profit at the expense of the tax payer. That a CABAL would be created for this purpose sound like a plot from a Tom Clancy or John Le Carre novel. However as they say truth is stranger then fiction.
 In an feature article in the Los Angeles Times on Sunday January 15, 2012, David Finkelstein writes that in 2006, the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta and the World Health Organization in Geneva issued  warnings of an imminent danger of an avian flu pandemic of lethal proportions comparable to the Spanish Flu of 1918 which resulted in the deaths of between 50 million and 100 million  people. A drug "Tamiflu, was represented in 8 or 9 studies as being effective in reducing the secondary complications of the flu, bronchitis and pneumonia.  Because the writer and his wife were going overseas on a writing assignment they sought to purchase the drug but found it very difficult to obtain because the fear of the pandemic had prompted panic buying and the drug was very scarce. President George W. Bush had stock piled the drug at a cost of more then a billion dollars. (it was not possible to acertain whether the pharmaceutical company, through another corporation or individuals donated to any George W. Bush Fund). The avian flu did not materialize as predicted but in 2009, the threat of another pandemic, swine flu loomed, and once again the drug Tamiflu was touted as effective. However in a  magazine report in 2011 it was revealed that a doctor had challenged the findings of the drugs effectiveness on the grounds that in a review of the data,  8 of the 10 studies had not been published. In seeking the raw data from the studies the doctor was stalled by excuses as to why the actual data could not be produced. Finally two employees of  a communications company revealed that they had been paid to ghost write some of the Tamiflu studies with specific instructions to emphasize that the flu was a serious threat and Tamiflu was the solution. The Pharmaceutical companies in effect had conned the public on issues of health in order to market their product at expense, of course of the taxpayer.
 Was this an isolated incident, perhaps not unless you have already forgotten about Enron, an American Energy Company based in Houston. Investors lost more than 60 billion dollars with the collapse of Enron in 2002. On February 20, 2000 Enron stock closed at $75.09 and by December 2,2001 the stock closed at .26 cents. Yet for the period of time while the stock was in free fall the stock was continued to be touted by corporate officials.
 In November 1997 Kenneth Lay bought out a partnership stake in a company called JEDI and sold the stake to a firm it created called Chewco, which was to be run by Enron officers. Thus began a series of transactions that enable Enron to hide debts.. The primary motivations for Enron's accounting and financial transactions seem to have been to keep reported income and cash flow up, assets value inflated and liabilities off the books. The Wall Street Journal did not report the existence of the Chewco Partnerships until October 26, 2001.The Justice Department did not launch a criminal investigation until January 9, 2002 . On January 10, 2002, John Ashcroft, the U.S. Attorney General recused himself from the investigation because he had received a donation of $57,499 from Enron, when he ran for the U.S. Senate.  
On April 17, 2001 Enron Chairman,  Kenneth Lay met with then Vice President Dick Cheney and other energy people in the first of 6 meetings . During the Enron Investigation Dick Cheney refused to provide minutes of the meetings to congress, citing executive privilege.
 Arthur Andersen and company, founded in 1913, one of the big five accounting firms in the country was the accountant and consultant for Enron. During the investigation, Arthur Andersen had their legal counsel instruct  the staff who audited Enron's books to destroy all but the most basic documents. Documents were shredded from October 23, 2001 to November 9, 2001 when the company was served with a subpoena. The resulting investigation led to the felony conviction of the company (later reversed on appeal)  which  resulted in the dissolution of the 89 year old firm which had 85, 000 employees in 84 different countries. 
 Kenneth Lay hosted two fund raisers for former president George H.W. Bush.  Karl Rove waited five months after taking office in January 2001 to sell more than 100 thousand shares of Enron Stock. George W. Bush received $312,500 in contributions from Enron for his gubernatorial race and $413.000 for his presidential war chest and inaugural fund.
Kenneth Lay had received 200 million dollars in salary, stock and other compensation since 1999.
 I'll leave it to the reader to connect the Legos,  and determine whether having friends in high places enabled Enron to defraud it's investors.
Again isolated cases?  Would billion dollar corporations lie and connive for profits without regard for the consequences of their actions. One has to look no farther then the tobacco industry, which has long been among the most powerful in the United States.
 The Center for Disease Control and Prevention reports that world wide, tobacco use causes more than 5 million deaths per year, and current trends show that tobacco use will cause more than 8 million death annually by 2030.  In the United States, tobacco use is responsible for about one in five deaths annually (i.e, about 443,000 deaths per year, and an estimated 49,000 of these tobacco-related deaths are the result of secondhand smoke exposure). On Average, smokers die 13 to 14 years earlier than nonsmokers.
 The cigarette industry spends billions each year on advertising and promotions, spending 12.5 billion in 2006, 34 million dollars a day.
Who can forget the testimony of the 7 CEO's of big tobacco on April 14, 1994, before the House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, that to their knowledge "Nicotine was not addictive." They were testifying because the subcommittee  has legislative jurisdiction over issues that effect our health, and no health issue is as important as cigarette smoking.
 As a result of the sustained criticism and legal action beginning in mid twentieth century did the tobacco industry take steps to improve the product or curb the sale of the single most dangerous consumer product ever sold?  No, guess again Muchacho,  instead the industry sought out scientists and paid them to make an 'objective appraisal' of whether secondhand smoke was harm to non-smokers, a move they hoped would dispel the 'extreme views' of some anti-smoking activists.
"The scientists, who came from prestigious institutions such as Georgetown University and the University of Massachusetts, did not consider themselves to be working on behalf of cigarette makers even though they were being paid by the industry. Government lawyers showed documents during a federal trial "that described the research initiative as a 'weapon' to be used in a battle with anti-smoking groups and that the scientists were to stick to the tobacco industry line.' according to Reuters. ( domestic news&storyID)
 The Tobacco Industry also formed the Tobacco Institute to defeat legislation unfavorable to the the tobacco industry, put a positive spin on the industry, bolster the industry's credibility with legislators and the public and help maintain the controversy over "the primary issue" (the health issue). In a February 1989 speech to the executive committee of the Tobacco Institute, , the group's senior vice president Charles Powers sought to save the industry's covert "Scientific Witness Program" from impending budget cuts. The program he said featured experts "who are our front line of defense in tax, public smoking and advertising hearings every day".it takes money he said. "The institute can't do it and be taken seriously. We need people who have earned reputations as serious researchers...who can review and critique articles, publish and act as peer reviewers" He estimated that it cost an average of $40,000 and took six weeks to identify and train a single expert.
 A new study at the University of California, San Francisco found that the Tobacco Industry "recruited and managed an international network of more than 80 scientific and medical experts in Europe, Asia and elsewhere in a bid to avoid regulations on secondhand smoke".
 The Tobacco Institute was the umbrella trade and lobbying association for the U.S.Tobacco Industry. As a result of settlement of a legal action brought against the industry by the U.S. National Association of Attorney General( NAAG) which resulted in a master settlement agreement in 1998 the institute was forced to disband and its internal records were placed in a searchable website ( revealed a disinformation campaign conducted by the institute on behalf of the American cigarette manufacturers. Also revealed were the strategies to take the focus off of the health, safety and environmental hazards posed by detrimental products and shift attention onto topics considered more favorable to the industry.
 The basic argumentation strategies are as follows:
 1) Shift the focus away from health. safety issues caused by a product and onto the economic contribution that the detrimental product makes to the country.
 2) Argue that legislation against the detrimental product is unnecessary, and that personal responsibility and industry self-regulation are preferable to legislation; (sound familiar?)
 3)  Argue that advertising is a necessary conduit through which important information is delivered to consumers;
 4) Argue that business would be seriously disadvantaged by legislation regulating the damaging product;
 5) Draw analogies between the detrimental product and less hazardous or bothersome products that require no warnings or pose no threat;
 6. Propose or introduce weak legislation or regulation that would yield no measurable impact on production or sales of the product, but that would create an appearance that something is being done to ameliorate the problems the detrimental product causes;

7) Pretend to take internal action to ameliorate problems caused by the detrimental product by developing internal programs, funding coalitions, "independent" research,etc.;
 8) Fund research through "credible" third parties showing the detrimental product is not dangerous or problematic, or is less dangerous or problematic than thought.
 9) File challenges against any laws or regulations of the product that do pass.

The tobacco industry is still up to it's dirty tricks, utilizing the above rules to prevent any type of legislation that will  discourage smokers and dimish profits through the use of a disinformation 
campaign conducted by the PhillipMorris USA and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Companym. Proposition 29 was a California  measure  to add a $1.00 per pack tax on cigarettes to fund cancer research which is certainly  worth while legislation that no one could oppose and certain to pass. The tobacco companies used their tried and true  strategies of taking  the focus off of the health, safety and environmental hazards posed by their detrimental products and shifted attention onto topics considered more favorable to the industry.  This is an industry that markets and sells a product , that when used as intended , causes disease and kills people.  The tobacco industry made the campaign something other than cancer and tobacco arguing that the measure would creat a bubureaucracy of highly paid executives, that the tax payer money would be spent out of state and that the measure had a 15 year life that could not be changed during that time. After spending $47 million dollars  to run anti tax negative ads they succeeded in a narrow victory in the California  primary on June 5th.  This proves once again that with enough money  the  gullible will accept what ever is fed to them.  
 The above three examples of large multibillion dollar corporations running roughshod over the tax- payer are not isolated incidents. It is the same robber-barron mentality that we thought had disappeared after exposure by the muckrakers They're back, or better said they never left and instead became more sophisticated. 
 The size and scope of the billions of dollars involved in the above three industries and their respective corporations are diminished when compared to the bank bailouts of 2008 enacted by President Bush. While most Americans polled believe that President Obama started the bank bailouts. The Troubled Assets relief Program (Tarp) was enacted on October 3, 2008 by the George W. Bush Administration and signed the same day by President Bush, in response to the subprime mortgage crisis created by the banking industry. It authorized the U.S. Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson to spend up to $700 billions to purchase distressed assets, especially mortgage backed securities, and make capital injections into banks. Additional unrelated provisions added an estimated $150 billion to the cost of the package.
Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman, Christopher Cox all appointed by President Bush Consulted and with President Bush moved forward to draft the proposal.
However although the 800 billion dollar bailout was nothing to sneeze at,  it appears that the bank bailout was much larger than previously reported.  By December 5, 2008 the emergency fund peaked to one trillion, two hundred billion dollars, yes one trillion, two hundred billion dollars. It was worth repeating.
Bloomberg Markets Magazine details trillions of dollars in secret federal loans made to big banks during the financial crisis, a process that helped them rake in billions of dollars in undisclosed profits. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke was quoted as stating that the bank bailout was kept a secret to prevent a stigma against banks that took part.
 According to a new Bloomberg Report, $7.7 trillion dollars is the total amount in undisclosed loans the Federal   Reserve made to struggling financial institutions. Rather than help curb the practice that cause the financial crisis. The Fed and its secret financing helped America’s biggest financial firms get bigger and go on to pay employees as much as they did at the height of the housing bubble.  In order to obtain this information Bloomberg had to review 29000 pages of federal documents courtesy of the Freedom of Information Act, and central bank records.
Attorney General Eric Holder announced today, (2/9/12), a 25 billion multi-state settlement with the nations’ biggest mortgage lenders over loan servicing and foreclosure abuse that occurred after the housing bubble burst. Five major banks Bank of America, JP Morgan, Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial will reduce loans for nearly 1 million households. Checks of $2000, will be sent
to 750.000 Americans who were improperly foreclosed upon. This is the largest settlement in one industry since the 1998  multi-state Tobacco deal.  

I could not  try to explain in a few words what caused the sub prime crash, since it is so complicated that It could be the subject of a doctorial disseration. If you are interested in learning more about these issues of Wall Street greed and government corruption I would suggest you contact Netflix and obtain the Academy Award winning documentary "Inside Job" narrated by Matt Damon.  It will leave you fully informed and very angry. 

This is the first step of the Obama Administration forcing the banking industry  to repay the American tax payer for their misdeeds and this is only a partial settlement.
All of the bank bailouts of course have increased the deficit that the Tea Party is so anxious to reduce but fails to acknowledge was brought about by President George W. Bush.
As the saying goes, money is the mother's milk of politics and the above facts are a testament to that adage. While the tobacco industry pioneered these strategies many of these strategies have since then been adopted and widely utilized by other industry groups and political organization.  The separation gap between the haves and the have more has always been there, but it has only been more visible during the past decade.
 The Koch brothers in order to accomplish their goals have formed "think Tanks on over 300 positions including subjects such as dismantling social security. It's the same old argument that social security is going bankrupt, that it should be privatized and that there is a need to raise the retirement age to the age of  at least 70.  The Koch brothers have donated 28.4 million dollars, which is just chump change to them to four foundations,The Heritage Foundation,3.4 million;The Cato Institute 13.6 million dollars; Mercatus,9 million and the Reason foundation 2.4 million, all working in an effort to espouse the Koch philosophy.
  Republican candidates running for the nomination with the help of Super PAC are working hard to establish their claim by buying their way into power. Everyone has heard of the Citizens United ruling but the background of the decision has gone by the wayside because usually supreme court rulings do not make for bed side reading material.
 The official name of the case is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Citations (in case anyone would like to read the original ruling) 558 U.S.[1]; 130 S. Ct.876, argued March 24, 2009, re argued September 9,2009 and decided January 21, 2010.
 This is considered a landmark decision which held that the First Amendment prohibits government from placing limits on independent spending for political purposes by corporations and unions. The Supreme Court in a five- four decision reversed a lower courts decision which had been appealed, striking down provisions of the  Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002,(McCain-Feingold Act) that prohibited all corporations, both for profit and not for profit, and unions from broadcasting "electioneering communications", (defined in McCain-Feingold as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate) within 60 days of a general election or thirty days of a primary. So far this must seem dry and boring to most of you but here comes the interesting part.
 During the 2004 presidential campaign, Citizens United, a conservative non profit (501 (c) (4) organization), filed a complaint before the FEC charging that ads for the Michael Moore Film Fahrenheit 9/11, which was critical of the Bush administration's response to the terrorists attacks on September 11, 2001, constituted political advertising and thus could not be aired 60 days before an election or 30 days before a party convention. On August 5, the FEC dismissed the complaint finding no evidence that the movie ads had broken the laws and dismissed a further complaint filed in 2005, wherein the complaint alleged that the  release and distribution of the film, FAHRENHEIT 9/11 constituted an independent expenditure because the film expressly advocated the defeat of President Bush and that by being fully or partially responsible for the film's release, Michael Moore and other entities associated with the group made excessive and/or prohibited contributions to unidentified candidates. The Commission found no reason to believe that Michael Moore violated the Act because the film, associated trailers and website represented bona fide commercial activity, not "contributions or expenditures" as defined by the Federal Elections Campaign Act.
 Those who saw the film will remember a scene where President Bush was reading a book to elementary school children on 9/11/ 2001.
The first plane had crashed into the twin towers which would have given a normal individual a clue that something was amiss, but there sat President Bush reading his book, A presidential aide then approaches the president and whispers in his ear that a second plane has crashed into the second tower and the president stares into space for a second and then continues reading to the children. This was during a period of time when it was known that a third and fourth plane had also been hijacked and discussions were taking place as to whether a commercial airliner full of passengers should be taken down with guided missiles from U.S.jets..
 It is understandable why Citizens United were upset that the president could be viewed as being useless and unprepared to deal with an ongoing crisis.
As a result of this decision the conservative group Citizen's United sought to run television commercials during the 2008 campaign promoting its political documentary Hillary: The Movie, which was critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, and to air the movie on DirecTV.
In January 2008 the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the commercials violated the provisions of the McCain-Finegold reform Act which restricted electioneering communications within 30 days before a primary. Though the conservative group claimed that the documentary was fact-based and non partisan, the District Court found that the film had no purpose other than to discredit Clinton's candidacy for President.
 Citizen's United appeal led, oral argument was heard on March 24, 2009 and re argued on September 29, 2009. The Majority Opinion authored by Justice Kennedy found that prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions was invalid and could not be applied to spending such as that in Hillary: The Movie.  Kennedy wrote that "if the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech". He also expressed his opinion that since there was no way to distinguish between media and other corporations that  these restrictions would allow congress to suppress political speech in newspapers , books, television and blogs. The court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which had previously held that a Michigan campaign finance act that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendment. Also overruled was McConnell v. Federal Election Campaigning Act's restriction on independent expenditures  to include "electioneering communications". The court's ruling effectively removed the limit on the amount corporations and unions can spend on "electioneering communications". 
 A dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor while concurring in the court's decision in sustaining the BCRA disclosure provisions, held that the court's holding was facially unconstitutional because it was ruling on a question that was not brought before it by the litigants, Citizen's United, and so claimed that the majority on the court " changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law. Stevens concluded his dissent: At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American People, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosvelt.
Citizen's United which during the litigation had the support of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Rifle Association  in myopic thinking held that the Supreme Courts decision allowing it to air it documentary film and advertisements was a tremendous victory for every American who desires to participate in the political process.
The Heritage Foundation (a Koch brother’s funded organization) said "The supreme Court has restored a part of the First Amendment that had been unfortunately stolen by congress and a previously wrongly-decided decision by the court.
 A libertarian from the Cato Institute (another Koch brother’s funded organization) wrote that the restrictions on advertising were based on the idea "that corporations had so much money that their spending would create vast inequalities in speech that would undermine democracy".
 The decision in Citizen's United paved the way for the creation expenditure political action committees, known as Super PAC's. These organizations may accept unlimited contributions from individuals, unions, and corporations (both profit and non profit) for the purpose of making independent expenditures.
 In essence the right wing five members of the Supreme Court (Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Kennedy and Thomas), evidently upset over the fact that Michael Moore was able to release and show Fahrenheit 9/11, 30 day before a primary because it was considered a commercial product, decided to make an example and allow the showing of the film Hillary: The Movie, by Citizens United. In so doing they dispense with the issue of when congress can impose constitutional restraints on the first amendment and removed all impediments going to the extreme to say the the First Amendment allows persons the freedom of speech and if people associate and form a corporation, that corporation should be considered a person and therefore entitle to First Amendment Protection and that decision has been said to match or exceed Bush v. Gore in ideological or partisan overreaching by the court.
 A year after the decision, Common Cause asked the Department of Justice to investigate conflicts of interests on the part of two of the justices in the majority, Thomas, whose wife is the founder and president of Liberty Central, a conservative political advocacy group that would be empowered to accept corporate contributions to run campaign advertisements,  and Scalia, both of whom had participated in political strategy sessions organized by David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch, who stood to benefit from the decision by taking advantage of the rights upheld by the court, (yes the same Koch brothers who have their tentacles extended to influence any and all political and governmental issues).
 Democratic Senator Russ Feingold a lead sponsor of the BCRA, (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act) stated that the Supreme Court presented with a relatively narrow issue chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president.
 Republican Senator John McCain, co-sponsor of the BCRA was disappointed by the decision but not surprised, saying that it was clear that Justice Roberts, Alito and Scalia, by their very skeptical and sarcastic comments, were very much opposed by BCRA.
 New York Democratic Senator, Charles E. Schumer and Maryland Congressman Chris Van Hollen, outlined legislation aimed at dismantling the decision by introducing a Disclosure Act which passed in the house but failed in the senate. It would have required  additional disclosure by corporations of their campaign expenditures and would have prohibited political spending by U.S. companies  with 20 percent or more foreign ownership, and by most government contractors. The Disclosure act twice failed to pass  the U.S. Senate, in both instances reaching only 59 of the 60 votes required to overcome a unified Republican filibuster.
 On December 8, 2011 Senator Bernie Sanders proposed the Saving America Democracy Amendment, which would reverse the court’s ruling.
Move to Amend is a national coalition of hundreds of organizations and over 113,000 individuals was formed in response to the ruling. It is seeking legislation or amendments that would restrict corporations or corporate interests groups from excessive influence in elections and law making. The organization has local chapters in many states and sponsors public awareness activities. Locally  meetings are scheduled nationwide. However amending the constitution is no easy feat. Both house have to approve the amendment which would be impossible at this time and then 2/3 of the states have to ratify. The last time it was tried was 1972 with the ERA which ended short of the states needed 35 to 38 before the period of time (7 years) expired. It is still being revived each year, the last time on July 9, 2009 with the 3 state strategy rule (since the ERA was only short by 3 states it would only take ratification by 3 states to amend the constitution). However  some states that had previously ratified the amendment prior to the 7 year expiration date, recinded their ratification, so there are issues with the 3 state strategy.
At this time in this election year it is best to use all your free time and money to work for the reelection of President Obama.  The Republicans have suffered from the SuperPAK millions and will be the first to want to amend the constitution or enact legislation. There will be plenty of time to work for Move to Amend after the November election if necessary!

This has been a difficult read because it forces us to accept the greed and corruption of corporate America which affects our daily lives from health care to free speech, Billionaires are using their enormous wealth through Super PAC’s to force their opinions on the general populace who are too busy trying to earn a living to take notice. The ultraconservative Koch Brothers, Charles and David along with other billionaires have pledged to raise 100 million dollars in order to defeat President Obama’s reelection.
To paraphrase Dylan Thomas, Let’s not go gently into the goodnight –lets burn and rage-rage against the acts of the corrupt, the racists the cynics who conspire to buy the election and assume the power of the presidency for their own selfish interests.  Yes, I know the poem refers to death and we will be going through a slow death indeed, if we allow them to bully us into submission. We have seen what they have done in Indiana, Wisconsin and Arizona to name only a few states. where they view power as an opportunity to blame public employees, unions and collective bargaining for the state of the economy. They use the power of the state to enact legislation to restrict the voting rights of those they view as a threat. They are insidious in the way they infiltrate organizations in order to force their philosophy and viewpoints on others as occurred recently in the Susan G Komen/Planned Parenthood Fiasco.
We cannot allow despotic billionaires, segments of the government and right wing judiciary to trample our freedoms. It is time to get active and assert our rights, there is might in power as was seen when the Bank of American was forced to drop their plan to add $5 as a sur-charge for you to use your own credit card. The Komen Foundation was forced to retreat from the decision to cut funding from Planned Parenthood as a result of the huge outcry.
This and only this is the kind of response that is needed to demonstrate to the 1% that the 99% are alive, strong and will stand up for our rights. 

The latest ploy by the Republican members of congress is to make it appear that a regulation in the 2010 healthcare law that required religiously affillated hospitals, charities and universities to provide birth control coverage for their female employees even if that conflicted with church teachings was an attack on religion itself.  This issue has been resolved and while the employees  still will be offered free birth control coverage, the benefits will come directly from their insurers, and no religious groups' money will be used. 

Not all birth control medication is taken to avoid pregnancy, some who face a greater risk of developing ovarian cancer are forced to take the medications for reasons of health. For those interested in learning more about this subject matter, please google "endometriosis." The Rick Santorum's of this world are not interested in listening to reason.

28 states including California and New York, already mandate that contraception be included in prescription drug coverage.
This is a perfect example of another attempt by the right wing without having all the facts, trying to  discredit the President.

When you hear someone say that the president has failed to accomplish anything,  just remined them of what Maureen Doud  has said, “Osama Bin Laden is dead, and General Motors’ is alive.”                                                                                                               
As Clint Eastwood said during the Super Bowl, “I’ve seen lot of tough eras, a lot of downturns in my life, times when we didn’t  understand each other, it seems that we’ve lost heart at times,-the fog of division, discord and blame made it hard to see what lies ahead. But after those trials we all rallied around what was right and acted as one” “Yeah it’s halftime, America, and our second half is about to begin.”

No comments:

Post a Comment