For many years now, the United States Navy has been an organization in search of a mission. Despite the absence of a blue-water threat in the world, the Navy remains structured to fight a Cold War that ended 20 years ago. Even in its reduced size (about 285 ships and submarines) America’s navy still matches or exceeds the combined strength of the Russian and Chinese fleets. Thus, for the foreseeable future we do not need more of the same.
So what do we need?
Well, since Vietnam (37 years ago), nearly all the Navy’s fighting has been done by aviators and SEALs. With rare exceptions they operate well above the high tide mark—frequently hundreds of miles above it. So If we’re going to add anything to the fleet, it should probably be minesweepers, because poorly-funded navies do well with those low-cost “weapons that wait.” In order to meet that threat—and the potential for hostile submarines—we can do with fewer superfluous gadgets like ballistic missile subs and stealth airplanes.
Speaking of which...
Naval aviation has nailed the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to the institutional mast, staking carrier air’s future on an extremely expensive, overly sophisticated machine that refuses to meet design criteria or budget limits.
There’s also problems with ships and manning. Through most of the 1990s, about 3.5 percent of ships failed inspection. From 2005 onward, the figure approached 14 percent. Consequently, fewer of our current vessels are available to deploy, which reduces prospects for building toward the Navy’s goal of 312 or so. The problem has persisted for years, apparently with little prospect of improvement. In other words, the cause is systemic.
Then there’s women in submarines. Die-hard seamen are vehemently opposed to putting females aboard subs, a topic floated (excuse the phrase) during the 1990s tenure of Frank Kelso as CNO. A “bubblehead” himself, he was all in favor of putting women in combat aircraft but was far less enthused about having them in his part of the navy—the noncombatant part. The last time American submariners torpedoed an enemy ship was 1945, so perhaps the women in subs thing is overblown. As long as subs remain passive vessels (deterrence and surveillance) any untoward “gender-related” events presumably will be minimized.
There are also serious problems with the Navy's culture, not least of which is the annual Midway Night. Each June the service commemorates the 1942 battle that ended Japan’s strategic offensive in WW II. And each year the chief of naval operations makes a suitable oration—or not. In 2009 the CNO delivered a speech about the battle without once mentioning Japan. Honest. This year he did marginally better, uttering The J Word once while citing Midway and a dozen other Pacific battles.
Political correctness is alive and well in Uncle Sam’s Navy.
Then there’s the Marine Corps, which sailors call Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children, among less printable endearments. Currently a move is underway in Congress to rename the naval bureaucracy the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps. Even some former Marines (reputedly there are no ex-Marines) are unenthused about the idea. As a retired leatherneck general once said, “Of course the Marines are party of the Navy—the best part!”
Hower, many Marines (read: every single one I know of) were outraged when the politicians decided to name a ship after former/ex marine and pork-producing congressman for life John Murtha, who declared Marines in Iraq guilty of murder before the facts were in. But hey, such is politics. That kind of stink can stick to any surface, including Marine Green. A correspondent wrote, “As a Former Naval Person, naming anything above a self-propelled garbage scow for the late Rep. Murtha is an abomination.”
More consequential is the Marines’ obsolete fixation on making opposed amphibious landings—something neither they nor apparently anyone else has done since the middle of the last century. Here’s what detectives call a Clue:
Are you old enough to remember Inchon and Wonsan in 1950? Me neither. But when you have a bunch of expensive widgets that you haven’t used in 60 years, you probably don’t need new ones, let alone the old widgets on hand. Yet the Marines and their lobbyists keep pushing for a new generation of amphibious assault craft.
Finally, there’s the ridiculous trend toward admiral inflation.
The May issue of Naval Institute Proceedings contains the annual roster of Navy flag officers, with some 330 listed in more than 16 pages. That represents a 53% increase over the 2006 figure of 215, or a 13 percent Annual Admiral Inflation Index (AAII) pro-rated over a four-year period! Now, Congress approves flag officer billets based on actual, perceived, or manufactured needs from year to year. Friends remaining on active duty note that increased requirements for joint command billets account for much of the AAII, but cannot possibly explain (let alone justify) one appalling fact: With a nominal 285 ships and submarines, we now have approximately 1.15 admirals per vessel. Anybody care to guess the response from the shades of Bull Halsey, Ernie King, or Arleigh Burke? It sounds more like a Gilbert and Sullivan opera than a self-respecting military service.
I have a suggestion: Starting with the next fiscal year, each star wearer will receive a form to be filled out and returned to the Superfluous Admiral Reduction Board (SARB). The form will read: "I should be retained on active duty for one more year because..." (Fill in the blank in 25 words or less. Bonus points for brevity.) The SARB shall be composed of three chief petty officers, three junior officers (one each O-2, 3, and 4), and three civilian taxpayers, all chosen at random. Each admiral's answer will be rated pass-fail, with a two-thirds majority necessary for retention. Cost of the process will be more than offset by immediate retirement of the superfluous star wearers--an astonishing example of a program actually turning a profit.
The Navy might even assign one of those extraneous admirals to check this space for additional solutions. Certainly the price is right.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
ARIZONA
Arizona has been in the news lately, most of it critical and some of it vicious. Seems a lot of people, including those with no right to be here, have declared the 48th state to be racist, fear mongering, xenophobic, and probably fattening.
But there’s more.
Recent legislation has ended the requirement for adults to gain a permit for discreet carry in most places, and authorized such carry where liquor is served--as long as the patron does not imbibe. Both proposals drew entirely predictable bleating: blood in the streets and on the bar room floor. It is ever thus with firearms legislation, despite decades of evidence to the contrary. In fact, history demonstrates that CCW either diminishes violent crime or has no effect—the latter from the National Academy of Sciences in 2004.
Here’s a bit of Arizona lore.
In 1910, two years before statehood, Arizona Territory was represented at the national rifle matches in Ohio. However, the team had no flag for the event, and there wasn’t much time to produce one. So, aboard the eastbound train, the captain of the rifle team consulted with Carl Hayden, who became the state’s senior senator. Mrs. Hayden plied needle and thread to produce Colonel C.W. Harris’ design, and the first time the red, yellow, blue and gold emblem took the breeze was oe’r the snapple-crack of musketry.
Arizona has been gun country ever since—probably with more national and world-class shooters per capita than anyplace on earth.
Now, on to immigration.
Senate Bill 1070 passed with a 70 percent approval rating among all Arizonans, of whom about one-third are of Hispanic ancestry. Since the politically-inspired hysteria began, 1070’s statewide approval dropped to 52 percent (based on tourism fallout) before climbing again. Meanwhile, liberals immediately demanded a boycott of Arizona, to the extent that some brain-dead critics swore off Arizona Iced Tea—a product of New York. Those benighted souls didn’t stop to think (!) that Hispanics would suffer disproportionately from a boycott. Not to mention that LA gets ¼ of its electricity from Arizona…
The boycott is based on two factors: lies and ignorance. Contrary to what you’ll hear, SB 1070 neither permits nor encourages cops to confront any swarthy individual and demand “Your paperss, pleeze.” And oh BTW: if you travel in Mexico you are required to have your paperss on you at all times. In Guatemala gendarmes with submachine guns ask just that of gringos and others. Additionally, the manufactured Papers Crisis is totally disingenuous: I had to show ID the last three times I checked into hotels in New York and New Jersey.
Here’s the bill. Read it yourself and you’ll be way ahead of those who oppose it, including the Attorney General of the United States.
http://immigrationclearinghouse.org/text-of-arizona-senate-bill-1070/
There’s a symbiotic relationship between immigration lies and immigration ignorance: the ignorant base their attitudes on the lies they’ve heard. A Californian called a Phoenix talk show saying she knew that 1070 permitted police inquisitors to demand papers BECAUSE SHE HEARD A LAWYER SAY SO ON TV.
The president of the United States said pretty much the same thing—be careful taking your kids out for ice cream, remember?
Plain fact is: those who oppose 1070 side with lawbreakers, many of whom commit ultra-violent crimes here. It’s called Illegal Immigration because coming here illegally is, well, illegal.
Now as for the polls: In 2008 John McCain barely won Arizona with 53% of the vote while Obama got 45%. Even using the lowest 52% approval of SB 1070 (a figure widely exceeded nationwide), a goodly slice of Obama voters reject his opposition to enforcing the laws he is sworn to uphold. That means all the laws: you don’t get to pick and choose.
It’s not about race or profiling: it’s about sovereignty. Among those who understand that concept is a retired Arizona Department of Public Safety officer who wrote the Republic: “Once a police officer has taken his oath of office, he swears to uphold the laws of the State of Arizona and to protect the Constitution of the United States of America. He has no choice and can't decide which laws he wants to enforce and which ones he won't.”
Speaking of the Constitution, Article VI, Section 4 says that the federal government is supposed to protect states from invasion. It's a national security issue. When the Mexican Government approves and the U.S. Government ignores the northward movement of 2,500 or more illegals per day, that is an invasion.
With millions of illegals not only permitted but encouraged to invade, what are the long-term results? One is an institutionalized culture of scofflaws: with favored groups permitted to decide which laws they will follow, you can fill in the blanks as to the effects downstream. You could make a case for American citizens being permitted to ignore specific laws when aliens are allowed to do so for decades. It’s called Equal Protection Clause. If you don’t have your copy of the Owner’s Manual at hand, look here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14 .
There’s also the immutable rule of economics. Illegals impose enormous financial costs upon Arizona and other states: health care, education, “entitlements,” and law enforcement. When the nation faces unprecedented government-imposed debt, the argument for supporting people with no right to be here falls even farther astern.
Since the reasons against illegal immigration are so clear, we’re left wondering why so many Democrats oppose enforcement. The reason is obvious: illegals already vote (illegally) and may have decided some elections. In 1997 “B-1 Bob” Dornan stated that he lost his California congressional seat for that very reason. But if people need to show legitimate ID to vote—as they do to cash a check—some Democrat seats become shaky.
And those seats look shakier. A USA Today/Gallup poll shows that 90 percent of Americans consider controlling our borders “extremely or very important” and another 21 % “moderately important.” A CBS poll shows 51% believe the Arizona law is “about right” while 9% say it doesn’t go far enough: 60% in all.
http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm
Are those majorities “racist”?
Depends on how much objectivity you retain, doesn’t it?
But there’s more.
Recent legislation has ended the requirement for adults to gain a permit for discreet carry in most places, and authorized such carry where liquor is served--as long as the patron does not imbibe. Both proposals drew entirely predictable bleating: blood in the streets and on the bar room floor. It is ever thus with firearms legislation, despite decades of evidence to the contrary. In fact, history demonstrates that CCW either diminishes violent crime or has no effect—the latter from the National Academy of Sciences in 2004.
Here’s a bit of Arizona lore.
In 1910, two years before statehood, Arizona Territory was represented at the national rifle matches in Ohio. However, the team had no flag for the event, and there wasn’t much time to produce one. So, aboard the eastbound train, the captain of the rifle team consulted with Carl Hayden, who became the state’s senior senator. Mrs. Hayden plied needle and thread to produce Colonel C.W. Harris’ design, and the first time the red, yellow, blue and gold emblem took the breeze was oe’r the snapple-crack of musketry.
Arizona has been gun country ever since—probably with more national and world-class shooters per capita than anyplace on earth.
Now, on to immigration.
Senate Bill 1070 passed with a 70 percent approval rating among all Arizonans, of whom about one-third are of Hispanic ancestry. Since the politically-inspired hysteria began, 1070’s statewide approval dropped to 52 percent (based on tourism fallout) before climbing again. Meanwhile, liberals immediately demanded a boycott of Arizona, to the extent that some brain-dead critics swore off Arizona Iced Tea—a product of New York. Those benighted souls didn’t stop to think (!) that Hispanics would suffer disproportionately from a boycott. Not to mention that LA gets ¼ of its electricity from Arizona…
The boycott is based on two factors: lies and ignorance. Contrary to what you’ll hear, SB 1070 neither permits nor encourages cops to confront any swarthy individual and demand “Your paperss, pleeze.” And oh BTW: if you travel in Mexico you are required to have your paperss on you at all times. In Guatemala gendarmes with submachine guns ask just that of gringos and others. Additionally, the manufactured Papers Crisis is totally disingenuous: I had to show ID the last three times I checked into hotels in New York and New Jersey.
Here’s the bill. Read it yourself and you’ll be way ahead of those who oppose it, including the Attorney General of the United States.
http://immigrationclearinghouse.org/text-of-arizona-senate-bill-1070/
There’s a symbiotic relationship between immigration lies and immigration ignorance: the ignorant base their attitudes on the lies they’ve heard. A Californian called a Phoenix talk show saying she knew that 1070 permitted police inquisitors to demand papers BECAUSE SHE HEARD A LAWYER SAY SO ON TV.
The president of the United States said pretty much the same thing—be careful taking your kids out for ice cream, remember?
Plain fact is: those who oppose 1070 side with lawbreakers, many of whom commit ultra-violent crimes here. It’s called Illegal Immigration because coming here illegally is, well, illegal.
Now as for the polls: In 2008 John McCain barely won Arizona with 53% of the vote while Obama got 45%. Even using the lowest 52% approval of SB 1070 (a figure widely exceeded nationwide), a goodly slice of Obama voters reject his opposition to enforcing the laws he is sworn to uphold. That means all the laws: you don’t get to pick and choose.
It’s not about race or profiling: it’s about sovereignty. Among those who understand that concept is a retired Arizona Department of Public Safety officer who wrote the Republic: “Once a police officer has taken his oath of office, he swears to uphold the laws of the State of Arizona and to protect the Constitution of the United States of America. He has no choice and can't decide which laws he wants to enforce and which ones he won't.”
Speaking of the Constitution, Article VI, Section 4 says that the federal government is supposed to protect states from invasion. It's a national security issue. When the Mexican Government approves and the U.S. Government ignores the northward movement of 2,500 or more illegals per day, that is an invasion.
With millions of illegals not only permitted but encouraged to invade, what are the long-term results? One is an institutionalized culture of scofflaws: with favored groups permitted to decide which laws they will follow, you can fill in the blanks as to the effects downstream. You could make a case for American citizens being permitted to ignore specific laws when aliens are allowed to do so for decades. It’s called Equal Protection Clause. If you don’t have your copy of the Owner’s Manual at hand, look here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14 .
There’s also the immutable rule of economics. Illegals impose enormous financial costs upon Arizona and other states: health care, education, “entitlements,” and law enforcement. When the nation faces unprecedented government-imposed debt, the argument for supporting people with no right to be here falls even farther astern.
Since the reasons against illegal immigration are so clear, we’re left wondering why so many Democrats oppose enforcement. The reason is obvious: illegals already vote (illegally) and may have decided some elections. In 1997 “B-1 Bob” Dornan stated that he lost his California congressional seat for that very reason. But if people need to show legitimate ID to vote—as they do to cash a check—some Democrat seats become shaky.
And those seats look shakier. A USA Today/Gallup poll shows that 90 percent of Americans consider controlling our borders “extremely or very important” and another 21 % “moderately important.” A CBS poll shows 51% believe the Arizona law is “about right” while 9% say it doesn’t go far enough: 60% in all.
http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm
Are those majorities “racist”?
Depends on how much objectivity you retain, doesn’t it?
Sunday, April 18, 2010
DON'T BLAME THE DEMOCRATS
Well, it finally happened: Obamacare and the further socialization of America were passed on March 21—a Sunday, when many Americans still believe no work should be done, least of all in Congress.
The disastrous outcome of a multi-trillion dollar medical program is inevitable. There are not enough doctors, nurses, hospitals, labs, or clinics to accommodate another 30 million government-mandated patients, and there’s no money to pay for it. The “progressives” in congress purchased, bullied, and forced their agenda upon a population that devoutly does not want the program. Never mind: the tone was set by the chairman of the House rules committee—a disbarred judge who said on camera “There aren’t any rules because we make them up.”
How’s that Change You Can Believe In working for you?
That question, incidentally, is not aimed at “progressives”. It’s aimed at those who are most responsible for the miserable present and disastrous economic future that our progeny will inherit.
I’d speaking of you Republicans.
I know what I’m talking about because I used to be one of you. For four generations my family was GOP: state senators, mayors, precinct committee members. True believers and worker bees.
No more: not since the early 90s. The reasons are many and varied, starting with the moral cowardice and lies of the Bush 41 (“Read my lips”) administration, followed by the limp campaign of Bob Dole. Martin Luther King, Jr. had a Dream. Bob Dole had a Pulse.
What some GOPers considered a narrow reprieve in 2000 only set the stage for the fiscal irresponsibility of Bush 43 and his acolytes in congress who spent like, well, like Democrats. The same GOPers who invaded Iraq without a Plan B. Dubya declared “Mission accomplished” upon deposing Saddam’s regime but still was mired in Iraq when he left office nearly six years later.
That was predictable, folks.
Fast-forward to 2009 when pundit Dick Morris asserted that conservatism was not going to be saved by “the knuckleheads and morons who run the Republican Party.” He didn’t specify the time servers, hacks, and wimps comprising the GOP “leadership” because he didn’t have to. Instead, Morris announced that he was starting a fund raising campaign on his own to target the Democrats most needful of retirement in the next election.
So don’t blame the Democrats. They’re simply being what they are—socialist ideologues with no more than passing acquaintance with American values. But We The People spoke on November 4, 2008, and now we’re stuck.
One of the most overlooked stories of the GOP primaries that year was the Arizona primary. McCain—the party’s handpicked carpetbagger who likely became Senator For Life—failed to win a majority in his “home” state. (Actually he doesn’t have a home state, being born in the Panama Canal Zone.) That should have told the country club set that maybe the professional POW wasn’t the one to tackle the Democrat varsity. But it didn’t. Instead, we were treated to what many Arizonans and others expected: a weak, wimpish campaign that not even Sarah Palin—the only outsider in the race—could offset.
How wimpish was it? Well, since you ask, I’ll tell you. In Lakeville, Minnesota, on October 10, the GOP candidate said, “My friends (he’s forever addressing people as My Friends), you have nothing to fear from an Obama administration.”
McCain, who hasn’t felt the need to answer constituent mail in years (come to think of it, in decades) is running ads emphasizing his “character.” Of course, they don’t mention his reputation in the Navy, and maybe they have a point. After all, personal ethics became irrelevant the day Bill Clinton was re-elected. But neither do McCain’s ads allude to the fact that he was the only GOPer in the Keating Five financial scandal.
But let’s not dwell on McCain, who parlayed 5 ½ years in Hanoi into at least 28 years in DC. He’s largely irrelevant, as is his party, which has been reduced to sideline status. He’s a symptom, not the disease.
It’s more instructive to ask how we came to the present disaster. As noted above, we cannot blame the Democrats, who promised “fundamentally to change America.” They meant what they said and they said what they meant. Get used to it.
Instead, look closer to home, Republicans. Look in the mirror.
If you were among the rheumy-eyed GOPers who supported a known weak candidate and vapid campaigner, a so-called “maverick” who was forever reaching across the aisle to his “friends” (that word again) on The Other Side, you’re to blame.
You gave us John McCain, who was never going to beat the tough-as-nails, victory-at-any-cost Chicago machine.
That was bad enough. But you Republicans have taken a major step toward destroying the future of America, and whatever inspiration it drew from the inspiring past.
It’s likely that the GOP will reclaim the House and maybe even the Senate this year. But that only has the potential to slow the Demo Express, not necessarily to reverse it. After all, the Republicans squandered most of their historic opportunity after the 1994 Contract With America and wound up setting the stage for the current debacle—and then allowed the Demos and the state-run media to rewrite history about the mortgage crisis.
There’s only one reason for optimism. The country-club Republicans had their run, and consistently bungled it. With nobody else named George Bush to put on the ticket, and with Bob Dole still selling Viagra, the field is open. I predict that Sara Palin is not going to be a candidate—she has too much baggage and too little to offer besides a spunky persona. But you won’t save the Republic with spunk. If it’s to be saved at all, it’ll be done with someone burning a fire in the belly; someone beyond the recycled cast of Usual Suspects.
So whatever happens this year and in 2012, just remember one thing: you shouldn’t blame the Democrats.
The disastrous outcome of a multi-trillion dollar medical program is inevitable. There are not enough doctors, nurses, hospitals, labs, or clinics to accommodate another 30 million government-mandated patients, and there’s no money to pay for it. The “progressives” in congress purchased, bullied, and forced their agenda upon a population that devoutly does not want the program. Never mind: the tone was set by the chairman of the House rules committee—a disbarred judge who said on camera “There aren’t any rules because we make them up.”
How’s that Change You Can Believe In working for you?
That question, incidentally, is not aimed at “progressives”. It’s aimed at those who are most responsible for the miserable present and disastrous economic future that our progeny will inherit.
I’d speaking of you Republicans.
I know what I’m talking about because I used to be one of you. For four generations my family was GOP: state senators, mayors, precinct committee members. True believers and worker bees.
No more: not since the early 90s. The reasons are many and varied, starting with the moral cowardice and lies of the Bush 41 (“Read my lips”) administration, followed by the limp campaign of Bob Dole. Martin Luther King, Jr. had a Dream. Bob Dole had a Pulse.
What some GOPers considered a narrow reprieve in 2000 only set the stage for the fiscal irresponsibility of Bush 43 and his acolytes in congress who spent like, well, like Democrats. The same GOPers who invaded Iraq without a Plan B. Dubya declared “Mission accomplished” upon deposing Saddam’s regime but still was mired in Iraq when he left office nearly six years later.
That was predictable, folks.
Fast-forward to 2009 when pundit Dick Morris asserted that conservatism was not going to be saved by “the knuckleheads and morons who run the Republican Party.” He didn’t specify the time servers, hacks, and wimps comprising the GOP “leadership” because he didn’t have to. Instead, Morris announced that he was starting a fund raising campaign on his own to target the Democrats most needful of retirement in the next election.
So don’t blame the Democrats. They’re simply being what they are—socialist ideologues with no more than passing acquaintance with American values. But We The People spoke on November 4, 2008, and now we’re stuck.
One of the most overlooked stories of the GOP primaries that year was the Arizona primary. McCain—the party’s handpicked carpetbagger who likely became Senator For Life—failed to win a majority in his “home” state. (Actually he doesn’t have a home state, being born in the Panama Canal Zone.) That should have told the country club set that maybe the professional POW wasn’t the one to tackle the Democrat varsity. But it didn’t. Instead, we were treated to what many Arizonans and others expected: a weak, wimpish campaign that not even Sarah Palin—the only outsider in the race—could offset.
How wimpish was it? Well, since you ask, I’ll tell you. In Lakeville, Minnesota, on October 10, the GOP candidate said, “My friends (he’s forever addressing people as My Friends), you have nothing to fear from an Obama administration.”
McCain, who hasn’t felt the need to answer constituent mail in years (come to think of it, in decades) is running ads emphasizing his “character.” Of course, they don’t mention his reputation in the Navy, and maybe they have a point. After all, personal ethics became irrelevant the day Bill Clinton was re-elected. But neither do McCain’s ads allude to the fact that he was the only GOPer in the Keating Five financial scandal.
But let’s not dwell on McCain, who parlayed 5 ½ years in Hanoi into at least 28 years in DC. He’s largely irrelevant, as is his party, which has been reduced to sideline status. He’s a symptom, not the disease.
It’s more instructive to ask how we came to the present disaster. As noted above, we cannot blame the Democrats, who promised “fundamentally to change America.” They meant what they said and they said what they meant. Get used to it.
Instead, look closer to home, Republicans. Look in the mirror.
If you were among the rheumy-eyed GOPers who supported a known weak candidate and vapid campaigner, a so-called “maverick” who was forever reaching across the aisle to his “friends” (that word again) on The Other Side, you’re to blame.
You gave us John McCain, who was never going to beat the tough-as-nails, victory-at-any-cost Chicago machine.
That was bad enough. But you Republicans have taken a major step toward destroying the future of America, and whatever inspiration it drew from the inspiring past.
It’s likely that the GOP will reclaim the House and maybe even the Senate this year. But that only has the potential to slow the Demo Express, not necessarily to reverse it. After all, the Republicans squandered most of their historic opportunity after the 1994 Contract With America and wound up setting the stage for the current debacle—and then allowed the Demos and the state-run media to rewrite history about the mortgage crisis.
There’s only one reason for optimism. The country-club Republicans had their run, and consistently bungled it. With nobody else named George Bush to put on the ticket, and with Bob Dole still selling Viagra, the field is open. I predict that Sara Palin is not going to be a candidate—she has too much baggage and too little to offer besides a spunky persona. But you won’t save the Republic with spunk. If it’s to be saved at all, it’ll be done with someone burning a fire in the belly; someone beyond the recycled cast of Usual Suspects.
So whatever happens this year and in 2012, just remember one thing: you shouldn’t blame the Democrats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
