Brett Kavanaugh: The Great White, Cismale Defendant

* Book Club: McLuhan For Beginners

* Breitbart Breaking News On Kavanaugh

* Ben Dreyfuss: “People Hate the Mouthy Bro Who Forces You to Listen About How Great They Were at Sports at Their Sad Little Lily White Prep School.”

* Dems: Men are Trash

* Calgary Herald column defending Brett Kavanaugh slammed by city councillors, advertiser

* Obama warns against racial politics

* Murphy Brown revival tanks

Posted in America | Comments Off on Brett Kavanaugh: The Great White, Cismale Defendant

Brett Kavanaugh Fights Back

* Theater Thursday: Barry Lyndon (1975)

* Transcript of hearing

* Christine Blasey’s fear of flying

* NYT: Brett Kavanaugh and America’s ‘Himpathy’ Reckoning: Rarely has society’s tendency to sympathize with powerful men been so thoroughly on display.

* The Guardian: High school slut-shaming still haunts me. Kavanaugh made me relive it

* NYT: Black Female Lawmaker in Vermont Resigns After Racial Harassment: Kiah Morris, a Democrat, resigned from her seat in the State House of Representatives one month after she ended her re-election campaign over harassment and threats.

* Yahoo: Barbra Streisand to Trump in new song: Don’t lie to me!

* New York Daily News in 2010:

One of the media elite’s most whispered-about scandals went public Wednesday when married CNN correspondent Jeffrey Toobin squared off with a woman who says he’s the father of her baby.

Yale-educated lawyer Casey Greenfield – the daughter of eminent CBS News analyst Jeff Greenfield – had a chilly faceoff with Toobin in Manhattan Family Court.

The ex-lovers barely spoke in the waiting area before joining their lawyers behind closed doors with a court referee to hash out custody and money issues.

Toobin, who glumly sat several rows away from Casey Greenfield before the hearing, is said to have privately admitted to fathering the child, believed to have been born last summer, sources said.

A friend of Greenfield’s said the outspoken Toobin has resisted putting his name on the infant’s birth certificate and hasn’t given his former lover the child support she’s requested.

Greenfield, who wore a magenta blouse and dark tailored suit, has responded by refusing to let Toobin see the baby, the source said.

The ex-lovers and their lawyers declined all comment.

“Respectfully, I have nothing to say,” said Toobin, who was nattily attired in a spread-collar tattersall shirt, striped tie and blue suit.

Greenfield and Toobin appeared to be doing their best to avoid eye contact before the hearing, which was closed to the media.

He had his nose buried in a newspaper. She vigorously typed on her smartphone.

Greenfield, 36, was married to screenwriter Matt Manfredi in 2004 by federal Judge Kimba Wood, who became known as the “Love Judge” after an an affair of her own in 1995.

Manfredi, whose credits include “Crazy/Beautiful” and “Aeon Flux,” filed for separation fewer than two years later.

Toobin, 49, has been married since 1986 to his Harvard sweetheart, 51-year-old Amy McIntosh, who has held top positions with Verizon and the Zagat Survey.

The couple has two teenage children.

Toobin, who weighed in on former President Bill Clinton’s sex scandal in his best-seller, “A Vast Conspiracy,” wouldn’t say whether he and McIntosh are still living together.

He was wearing his gold wedding ring in court.

The legal analyst, who has covered some of America’s biggest court cases for CNN and written for The New Yorker, provoked double-takes from other lawyers in Family Court.

COMMENTS AT STEVE SAILER:

* I don’t think it is very similar to what Anita Hill said. Her claims were far less phantastic, and it would have been plausible that she remembered exactly what had happened.

But now, we have
– an accuser who does not remember when and where exactly an attempted rape decades ago occurred, but she claims to know which schoolboy it was, while there are no witnesses that she ever mentioned it to anyone earlier in her life
– stories about Kavanaugh allegedly being a member of a rape gang
Probably, soon, stories about Kavanaugh eating babies alive will emerge.

It is hard to see in what way this should be more crazy and more evidence-free than the Pizzagate allegations against Hillary Clinton.

This nomination process shows to the whole world how degenerated the political processes in the US have become. People don’t discuss political issues any more, but they accuse their political opponents without evidence of being puppets of foreign governments or of having been members of rape gangs in high school or running pedophile rings.

The Democrats’ cynical exploitation of women who, even if they speak the truth, have such murky memories of the events decades ago that they could hardly know whether the schoolboy they have in mind really was Kavanaugh is also disrespectful towards victims of rape who will have more difficulties being taken seriously after such an instrumentalization of phantasic allegations for political purposes.

* Perhaps running a gauntlet of personal attacks might become a standard hurdle in the careerist trajectory, like getting into the right school, scoring the right internship, chasing the right promotions. If you want to grasp the few coveted prestige jobs (at least in public service) you’ll be expected to survive a humiliating public crucible. It would be a ritual of passage, which may already be operating if you’re a careerist on the Right.

* I think that if Kavanaugh makes it through the confirmation vote, he’ll turn out to be a great justice like Clarence Thomas because of this fiasco.

The rip on Kavanaugh from the right is that he is a D.C.-born, Yale-educated, establishment Republican — something of a swamp creature. Republicans have been talking about putting him on SCOTUS for years… and he’s only 53. He was a golden boy and probably never saw this coming. He was completely blindsided by it.

Like Clarence Thomas, if Kavanaugh makes it onto the Court he’s going to be so red-pilled about who these people really are that I think he’s going to take the civil liberties of right-wingers and the potential for abuse of government in the hands of the Left very, very seriously.

* Don’t know Kavanaugh. Don’t necessarily believe him a saint, nor the devil. And while I haven’t closely analyzed the tea leaves of his prior decisions on the appellant bench, don’t necessarily think he represents our (i.e.: we, the plebes) best interests.

In other words, I have no dog in this fight other than substantive ones — how will he rule on privacy; first, second and fourth amendment issues; corporate rule…

That said, the Senate should confirm him, if his accuser(s) provide no credible evidence or supporting witnesses at todays hearing. After all, they’ve had plenty of time (over thirty years) to prepare. The standard applied must be the same afforded any other person accused of a serious crime — no evidence, no conviction.

Or in this case, no evidence — confirmation.

If all his accuser(s) offer are a “she said it, so it must be true” argument, it presupposes a woman will not lie or cannot be mistaken, and that there is no larger partisan political agenda in play. Neither supposition is true.

Having dealt with women, attorneys and politicians over the years, it has come to my attention that some will lie if they believe it serves their interests.

Absent a presumption of innocence and exercise of due process to sort through a complaint and determine its merit, those claims become nothing more than a means of attacking another person for whatever reason the claimant desires.

Absent rule of law, we descent into a hell of accusations as convictions — much like we put in place in Afghanistan and Iraq where we imprisoned thousands for merely being accused as “terrorists”…

Absent credible evidence and witnesses supporting these claims against Kavanaugh, vote to confirm Senators — unless, of course, there is some substantive and articulable reason not to do so in his prior decisions or answers to the committees’ substantive questions…

To do otherwise is not merely a slippery slope — it pitches us into the abyss.

* I totally blame Jeff Flake, Lisa Murkowski, and Sue Collins. This whole thing is for their benefit. It gives Flake a shot to screw his constituency one last time, a la McCain. It gives Sue Collins a chance to preen in Friday in front of her purple constituency. I’m not sure what it does for Murkowski, but she is mumbling about the need for a 7th FBI background check for probably the most boring guy in the work.

* I think they view Ford as a win-win. If they block Kavanaugh then great! If not well then it’s the evil misogynistic republicans hating and abusing women angle they can push heavy on a month away from elections.

* Kavanaugh should be the wake up call for everyone who is still in doubt that being religious, faithfully married, have school aged daughters, and live a suburban lifestyle does not protect you from the leftist lynch mob. In fact, it probably incenses them. This is true for all whites, male liberals as well as social conservatives, religious conservatives and neo-cucks. You have been warned.

One of the reasons Trump got so much resistance from fellow Republicans is that it was believed his sexual history would make him a easy target. They were right but did not understand that in this day and age any Republican was fair game to the faithless liberals who have no morals and no compunction. Ironically, Trump was probably the best prepared for this onslaught which is a big reason why we elected him. Every time he would publicly spar with a woman people would gasp while at the same time his ratings would climb (it was the same with race). He was a champion and a man who would fight and not hide in the closet of marriage. Huzzah!

* Reading from a completely prepared statement, zero eye contact, zero details, no emotions other than fear from being on national TV in front of the Senate. She’s lying. Oh, and the only picture we’ve seen of her must be about 15 years old.

* She’s a hysteric.

Grown women of that age don’t lament high school party non sexual encounters with boys as some sort unique burden and lifelong trauma. Farce.

* Fear? No, she looks thrilled to be on national TV. She was smiling before and during Grassley and Feinstein’s opening arguments. She’s loving the attention.

Her voice was tremulous as she recounted this fake event, but the whites of her eyes are unclouded by redness, there’s no blotchiness around her eyes or anywhere on her face and, most importantly, she is shedding NO tears. The latter three symptoms are involuntary, the quavery voice is voluntary.

She is lying.

Oh, she is so thrilled to be on the teevee!

* Vocal fry, ach nein!

It’s a strange affectation for a 51-year-old woman. Most women in their fifties don’t speak with this affectation.

It means Professor Dr. Blasey Ford spends a lot of time around up-talking millennials and emulates her students. It makes her feel young.

* Diane Feinstein personally asserted in her opening statement– neither directly quoting nor evincing that she was intending merely to paraphrase the accusation by another– that Judge Kavanaugh had exposed himself to Ms. Ramirez, thus making the accusation Senator Feinstein’s own. She read a veritable laundry list of other unsupported accusations belatedly leveled against Judge Kavanaugh, knowing full well that those accusers were not to be witnesses before the committee, at least not during this hearing itself. She was rightfully chastised by the committee chairman (who otherwise seems rather cringe-worthy in his inability even to read his own opening statement without fumbling for the words that are sitting in front of him).

* Christine has lived a more comfortable, privileged life than 99% of the people on the planet.

Yet, according to her, that is still not good enough.

* Ford is a boozy, floozy broad and is most definitely supported by others in this attack on Kavanaugh. She is a middle-aged woman who has aged horribly (which I can tell is due to her wild, younger days – when even then she was not attractive – and not anything Kavanaugh did to her). She looks like she’s on Prozac or Ambien right now.

* KMAC: Christine Ford is a nutcase emotional wreck. Maybe she should be allowed to take a warm bath with candles while testifying. She obviously doesn’t want to testify, or if she is willing, it will be under the least stressful conditions.

* Blasey strikes me as typical neurotic post-menopausal female. If she were here testifying to her abduction by space aliens or that she wore tinfoil inside her pussy hat to protect herself from Trump mind control beams she would sound exactly the same.

Female logic is a sight to behold – I was afraid that someone might break in and assault me in my home so I made sure to put in lots of doors to provide extra points of entry. The woman, despite her semi-illiterate letter, possesses a certain degree of intelligence but it’s clear that she is rule by emotion rather than reason, so her powers of reason are wasted on her. If it were possible, she would donate some of her wasted IQ points to some deserving ghetto child.

* Her critical mistake was this: she avoided remembering any falsifiable details, like where the assault took place, when it took place, or how the hell she even got home.

* I think that she loves having the nation’s attention while she tells us that she is so irresistibly hot that men lose control and force themselves on her.

* She comes across as a burned-out Valley Girl, who’s still living off her dead daddy’s money. THE VIEW crowd must be eating this crap up and loving it. If Kavanaugh survives this steaming pile of shit, he’s one extremely lucky bastard. Once again, the Republicans wind up getting beaten like a red-headed step-child by shoddy Dem tricks. The GOP simply don’t have a political Game in any way shape or form.

* It’s about an hour into her testimony and I have come to understand why she had a psychotherapist. She looks a little off. Not normal. Not wholesome.

But I’m a Republican. The Democrats see Joan of Arc and the Republicans see a scheming neurotic who has triumphed in her quest to smite Trump and to appear on national TV.

* Would love to know if this woman talks with this much vocal cry all the time. Seems put on. I think she has convinced herself of some of her purported details but not others. It could even be true. Of course, I don’t care if it is true.

If it is true, it’s an allegation against a literal minor. It is way too dangerous of a precedent to set to hold people accountable for unproven childhood dalliances. Ludicrous to consider it. Confirm him and move on.

* That was mind-blowing. She was treated with kid-gloves from start to finish. More than anything she came across as dim. She has made massively terrible accusations on the basis of no evidence and the witnesses she named could not corroborate what she said.

She has a PhD! I have one of those, and I now almost feel ashamed of it

At the end of that content-free mind-fart she was told that she had taught America an amazing lesson.

The female population of America will now cry in sympathy and vote Dem in November.

* I wanted Grassley (or another) to end by asking:
“Given your memories of this experience, what advice did you give your daughters (or nieces) to help them avoid this sort of situation?”

When she–inevitably–starts whining about and providing advice for men, cut her off:

“I didn’t ask about advice for men. Traditional Christian men, know they should not taken advantage of a woman. And we’ve all heard–endlessly–lectures from feminists both that all men are rapists and that when women go out to get drunk and “have fun” it is the duty of the drunk men, to make sure that the drunk women get home and tucked into bed safely and unmolested.

“No i asked about advice to young women. Based on your memories of this experience as a teenager, what advice can you offer young women to avoid getting groped or being in a situation where she is worried about being raped? What should young women do to be responsible for their own safety?”

* Its all about her feelings. Thats a losing topic. Very light on facts. If you’re viscerally revolted by Hillery, Ford is disgusting. K better be ready to defend himself.

* The uptalking, the vocal fry. The whiny, phony tears and shaky little girl voice.

So many fingernails across the blackboard. It is detestable.

But it is our future.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Brett Kavanaugh Fights Back

The Great White Penis Hunt

* James Kunstler: Going Full Porn

KMG: “Jennifer Rubin goes full Sarah Jeong, hates “old white guys”.”

* BREAKING: Creepy Porn Lawyer Avenatti Reveals 3rd Kavanaugh Accuser Making ‘Gang Rape’ Allegation

Kavanaugh Attorney: Lawyers for Christine Ford Have Not Turned Over Results of Lie Detector Test or Therapist’s Notes

* The Cult of Neoconservatism

* DC restaurant: Cruz, wife returned to finish meal after protests

* ‘Robot sex brothel’ slated to open is not wanted, Houston’s mayor says

* Love in the time of AI: meet the people falling for scripted robots

* Fareed Zakaria: I wanted to understand Europe’s populism. So I talked to Bono.

* NYT: ‘Better Call Saul’ Season 4, Episode 8 Recap: Snookered

Posted in America | Comments Off on The Great White Penis Hunt

Socialist Racism: Ethnic Cleansing and Racial Exclusion in the USSR and Israel

Otto Pohl writes:

During the 1970s, both the Crimean Tatars and Meskhetian Turks in Soviet Central
Asia compared their plight to that of the Palestinians. The Stalin regime deported
both the Crimean Tatars and Meskhetian Turks from their homelands to dispersed
settlements in Central Asia. The similarities between the Soviet policies of expelling
and permanently excluding the Crimean Tatars and Meskhetian Turks from
their homelands and similar Israeli policies towards the Palestinians are not entirely
coincidental. The Zionists based their mass expulsion of Palestinians in 1948 and
subsequent prohibition on allowing them to return to their homes in part on the
Soviet model. The similarities between the two instances of ethnic cleansing are due
in large part to this conscious emulation of Stalin’s methods by the Zionists.

Historical comparisons of ethnic cleansing are still quite rare and have only
touched on a handful of cases. Presently, scholars define ethnic cleansing as the
forced removal of ethnically defined populations from specific territories.1 More
importantly the cases compared have been limited. In the case of Stalin’s repressions,
the comparison most usually made is to Nazi crimes. These comparisons
have taken on a highly ideological color. While a few scholars such as Stephane
Courtois have sought to put Stalin’s crimes on an equal moral plane with those of
Hitler, many have resisted the comparison.2 A whole slew of arguments have been
crafted by academics as to why the Stalin regime’s deliberate killing of between 13
and 15 million people is morally less significant in comparison to Hitler’s killing of
between five and six million Jews. The details of these arguments—which all boil
down to systems of relativistic morality based not upon actions, but motivations
and the identity of the victims—are less important than the motives of those making
them.
The proponents of this position fall into two broad categories. Some of those
espousing these arguments are driven by a desire to rehabilitate the USSR and the
failed dream of socialism.3 To this end, they seek to transform the victims of state
murder by the Soviet government into something else, such as the unintentional
results of policies necessary to consolidate and defend the gains of the Great October
Revolution.4 The political power of these few remaining supporters of the Soviet
system is considerably less than the other group that minimizes Stalin’s crimes.
This other group is driven by support of a viewpoint that seeks to make the
Shoah absolutely unique in order to establish the position of Jews as the ultimate
victims in world history. This position is generally linked to support of the Zionist
project in Palestine and the continuing dispossession and repression of its native
Arab population. Zionism is defined here to mean an ideology aimed at creating a
secure Jewish majority state in the territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine.
A number of Western academics seeking to minimize Stalin’s crimes fall into
this category.5
Many of them are not Jewish, but espouse a position of “Holocaust
uniqueness” regarding ethnically motivated state killings that depicts Jews as “worthy
victims” and Eastern Europeans and Muslims as “unworthy victims.”6 Negative
stereotypes of these two groups are still sometimes promoted in Western
academia in ways that are considered completely unacceptable regarding Blacks,
Hispanics, and Jews.
This concerted effort to oppose any comparison between the atrocities of the
USSR and Nazi Germany is perhaps the single greatest factor in the paucity of any
comparative studies of Soviet ethnic cleansing. The similarities between Nazi policies
of extermination and Stalin’s ethnic cleansing are obvious enough to make
comparison of the two a natural starting point in contextualizing the two events.
They both occurred during World War II, they both involved the wholesale roundup
and forced deportation to deadly conditions of whole populations based upon
ancestry, and both deflected large amounts of military material and personnel away
from the war effort. Prevented from making this first obvious comparison, however,
historians never moved on to make other more interesting comparisons between
Stalin’s deportations and other cases of ethnic cleansing. The hostile
intellectual climate to such comparative work greatly retarded scholarship. As a
result, such work is about a decade behind where it should be…

One case of ethnic cleansing that is connected with the Stalinist deportations and
the Ottoman and Nazi cases as well, but remains absent from both Naimark and
Weitz, is the Nakbah. Al Nakbah, Arabic for “The Catastrophe,” refers to the mass
expulsion of the Palestinian Arabs from their homeland in 1948. The connections
between this case of ethnic cleansing and the Nazi and Ottoman regimes are obvious.
Palestine had been under Ottoman rule for centuries before becoming a British
Mandate. The Shoah created hundreds of thousands of displaced European Jews
who subsequently migrated to Palestine. Early in its existence, a full one-third of
Israel’s population consisted of Holocaust survivors. The Nazi extermination of
Jews also provided Israel and its supporters with its most effective propaganda
weapon to justify the expulsion of the Palestinians. Less obvious, but arguably more
important, are its connections with Soviet ethnic cleansing. Aside from the previously
noted fact that many of the same people attempting to minimize Stalin’s crimes
also seek to minimize or deny Israeli ethnic cleansing and racism, the two events
share a number of historical connections. They also share significant similarities
and parallels. These connections and similarities, however, have been almost completely
ignored by scholars. This lack of attention is unfortunate since the connections
still continue to exist and play a very real part in the continued suffering of the
Chechens, Palestinians, and other victims…

Ben-Gurion greatly admired the Soviet Union under Stalin as a model for building
a strong state and sought to emulate this success in Israel. Most Labor Zionists
shared his enthusiasm for the Soviet experiment. Both the Soviet and Israeli states
also espoused a socialist rhetoric dedicated to equality while practicing forms of
racial discrimination similar to apartheid in South Africa. After 1949, Soviet-Israeli
relations deteriorated steadily, particularly over the issue of the Israeli government
encouraging the emigration of educated and skilled Jews from the USSR.19 Moscow
found this policy unacceptable on practical and ideological grounds. First,
they desperately needed these workers to rebuild the Soviet Union in the wake of
World War II. Second, it implied that the USSR was not a fully socialist state that
had solved all nationality problems within its borders, including the existence of
anti-Semitism. Such an insult could be tolerated only so long.
This deterioration of relations continued throughout the next several decades. In
1955, Czechoslovakia signed an arms deal with Israel’s chief enemy, Nasser’s Egypt.
In 1956, the USSR along with the United States opposed the joint British, French,
and Israeli assault on Egypt to seize the Suez Canal. During the 1967 and 1973
wars, the USSR supported the Arab states against Israel diplomatically and militarily.
Finally after 1974, the USSR began to provide official support to the PLO.
Despite these events, the Soviet government continued to support the existence of
Israel as a Jewish state within its 1949–1967 borders.20 These later events have,
however, prevented historians from realizing the full ramifications of the close Soviet-Israeli
relations on Israeli policies during the creation of the state…

In contrast, despite the wishes of the Zionists, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine
remained incomplete. About 150,000 Palestinian Arabs out of a population of
900,000 remained in the territory that became Israel.67 Unlike the Soviets, the Zionists
operated under a number of constraints that made their job more difficult. First,
the Arabs were not an insignificant minority of Palestine’s population. Rather they
formed a two-thirds majority of Palestine’s population in 1947. They were 42%
even in the territory apportioned to be a Jewish state.68 Second, although hopelessly
outgunned, they did have some military organization and some support in this matter
from other Arab states. They could thus put up some resistance to the expulsions.
Finally, like in the case of the Ottoman deportation of the Armenians, the
high international profile of certain cities protected the Palestinian residents from
expulsion. This is most evident regarding the Christians of Nazareth and can be
compared to the protection by international attention afforded to Armenians in
Istanbul, Izmir, and Jerusalem during World War One.69 After the fighting ceased,
international scrutiny served to protect most of the Palestinian population remaining
under Israeli rule from further expulsions. The Zionists thus had to be content
with an 80% success rate in their ethnic cleansing versus the near 100% success of
their Soviet models.
Both the Soviets and Israelis engaged in a number of massacres in the course of
ethnic cleansing during the 1940s. The purpose of these massacres, however, differed.
In the Soviet case, the NKVD physically liquidated communities that proved
too burdensome to deport. That is, the massacres served to remove the last remaining
targeted communities that had not been loaded onto trains and deported from
their homelands. The most famous case was the village of Khaibakh in the ChechenIngush
ASSR. Poor weather conditions prevented the NKVD from being able to
deport the Chechens from the village of Khaibakh. Instead of loading these villagers
onto trains, the NKVD herded over 700 Chechen men, women, and children
into barns and sheds and set the structures on fire.70 The vast majority of these
unfortunates perished in the flames. Khaibakh remains a rallying cry of Chechen
nationalists to this day.
In contrast, the Zionists massacred Palestinians in 1948 to cause their flight in
fear from areas that became Israel in 1949. Rather than serve to complete the process
of ethnic cleansing, these atrocities served to start it from certain areas. The
most famous of such massacres occurred at Deir Yasin on 9 April 1948.71 Irgun and
LEHI forces rounded up over 200 Arab men, women, and children from this village
and killed them in order to terrorize other Palestinians into leaving land coveted by
the Zionists. This policy had great success. Many of the Palestinians that fled their
homes in 1948 did so specifically because they feared Zionist forces would repeat
the events of Deir Yasin in their villages. Like Khaibakh for the Chechens, Deir
Yasin is a symbol of national tragedy for the Palestinians. They commemorate the
massacre every April 9.
The internal nature of the Soviet deportations versus the external nature of the
Israeli expulsions is another key difference between the two cases.

Posted in Israel, Soviet Union | Comments Off on Socialist Racism: Ethnic Cleansing and Racial Exclusion in the USSR and Israel

Rod Rosenstein & The FBI Coup Attempt

00:00 FBI coup on Trump?
25:00 Brexit
37:00 Stephen Miller & immigration
47:00 I started the fire
51:00 KMG’s happy memory about Iggy Pop, David Bowie and Blondie visiting Vancouver in the summer of 1977
1:04:00 BOOK CLUB: Window on a Burning Man by Tim Newman
1:46:00 Maggie Parker’s NYT essay in praise of her exes shortly before her nuptials

* The Hill: Rosenstein wanted to wear wire on Trump, NYT says

* Jim Kunstler on Democratic tactics

* Timeline: Democrats’ Changing Demands for Christine Blasey Ford’s Testimony

* Marc Randazza Is Fighting To Keep Nazis And Trolls On Twitter In The New Speech Wars. Here’s Why.

* NYT: For two years, Americans have tried to absorb the details of the 2016 attack — hacked emails, social media fraud, suspected spies — and President Trump’s claims that it’s all a hoax. The Times explores what we know and what it means.

* Stephen Miller wins again: Haley, other foes excluded from immigration meeting

* Book Club: Window on a Burning Man

Posted in America, Dating | Comments Off on Rod Rosenstein & The FBI Coup Attempt