A thought provoking piece on whether “return at any cost” bias in Hebrew press coverage of efforts to recover Gilad Shalit is weakening Israel’s hand. “Even those who attempt to suggest that releasing hundreds of the worst terrorists who are sure to strike again, both by slaughtering innocent Israelis and by kidnapping additional ones for future trades, are forced first to reiterate that they also would be acting as the Schalit family has been if it were their own child in captivity.”
Charlie Rangel first expressed qualms about the AIG bonus tax. But then he joined the populist mob. Still, he’s quite cozy with the insurer: “But Mr. Rangel’s indignation was a reversal of his position earlier in the week, when he opposed heavily taxing the bonuses and warned his colleagues to restrain themselves from allowing the public outcry to warp their judgment. What is more, the congressman’s relationship with A.I.G. is a complicated one; as recently as last year, he was trying to woo the company to donate $10 million to a school to be named in his honor. And while A.I.G. officials mulled the request, Mr. Rangel supported a provision in a tax bill that saved the company millions of dollars. ”
Rahm Emanuel is using the Situation Room for political arm twisting. Makes you miss the Clintons, who just rented out the Lincoln Bedroom.
Will the mullahs still respect Obama in the morning? Yes, the Iran video was an embarrassing display of bowing and scraping to the “Islamic Republic of Iran” — with nary a mention of our own interests or suggestion that there are negative consequences for Iran’s continued human rights atrocities or nuclear program.
Meanwhile, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is upset that Obama is not the change he was waiting for. Perhaps MSNBC can book Iran’s Supreme Leader on Rachel Maddow or he can get his own Huffington Post column.
I hope the White House and Congress are pleased with their handiwork: “Longtime pillars of the community are now pariahs living in fear, hiding behind locked gates and security guards amid the public outrage over bonuses paid with taxpayer bailout money. . . Death threats have been pouring in since the brouhaha broke, the company said, and its workers are taking no chances.”
Charlie Cook on Congressional Republicans pulling into a tie with Democrats in generic polling: “If Republicans really have pulled even or slightly ahead among independent voters, that is a very ominous sign for Democrats, an indication that Obama’s talking the talk of bipartisanship isn’t sufficient and that he and the Democratic majorities on Capitol Hill have to walk the walk.” And fixing the economy would help, too.
Which do you think drew more people — the tea parties or the Obama pro-$3.6-trillion-budget canvassers? The whole grassroots/take back the country schtick doesn’t really work once you are the one in power.
I wonder how many White House spinners will descend on Tom Friedman for this one: “Right now we have an absence of inspirational leadership.”
The Washington Post editors hope the president will rethink his budget now that the CBO has revealed what the real deficit numbers will look like down the road: “Mr. Obama should treat the CBO report as an incentive to fulfill his repeated promises, during and after the campaign, to make hard choices on the budget.” Yeah, righhht.
Mitt Romney has the advantage of having run for president once — and it shows. His stance on the AIG bonuses and the confiscatory tax bill seems rather more mature than most of what is coming out of Washington.
“[E]ach one offers nothing more than a laundry list of Jewish last names….”
Yea, but they think that’s THE response, above all responses.
A “laundry list of Jewish last names” is their modern equivalent to Q.E.D.
The guy took money from the sauds.
Game, set and match. I didn’t need to know anything more than that, and everything thereafter that I learned about him only confirmed my initial suspicion of him, {triggered by my reading that he took petrodollars}.
If you’re on the payroll of the petrosheiks, ———————— we don’t want anything to do with ya’.
But back where goats and camels are real, real popular, —————– he’ll be more rewarded than ever. You realize this clown is going to become the poster child for supposed martyrs who suffered trying to stand up to the Jewish lobby.
I read the the truly obnoxious Robert Dreyfuss peace in The Nation, When Idiots Attack It shows his pedigree as a former editor of LaRouche’s ExecutiveIntelligence Reivew: That March 4th column crowed:
Now he wails: “Israel Lobby defeats Feeman”
I couldn’t help myself and posted this there:
No, I don’t mean Ketchup.
But I did mean, “piece” no peace.
In a post merely to inflame the anti Israel and increasingly anti semitic left – Mark Murray from First Read posted the following.
If he wanted to be fair he would have had to at least mention Freeman’s Saudi and Chinese connections – but no, its all the fault of AIPAC. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad and dangerous.
But what do you expect from MSNBC.
From NBC’s Mark Murray
The Washington Post and other news outlets have reported on the controversial appointment of Charles W. Freeman to lead the National Intelligence Council. The controversy — he has occasionally criticized Israel’s policies.
Per the Post: “Since 1997, he has presided over the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington-based nonprofit organization that is funded in part by Saudi money. In that role, Freeman has occasionally criticized the Israeli government’s positions and U.S. support for those policies. In 2007, for example, he said, ‘The brutal oppression of the Palestinians by the Israeli occupation shows no sign of ending,’ adding, ‘American identification with Israel has become total.’”
More: “Opposition to Freeman’s appointment has been led by several pro-Israel groups and advocates in the United States, joined by some members of Congress.”
Well, Freeman withdrew from consideration today. According to a statement from the DNI’s office, “Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair announced today that Ambassador Charles W. Freeman Jr. has requested that his selection to be Chairman of the National Intelligence Council not proceed. Director Blair accepted Ambassador Freeman’s decision with regret.”
The most telling fact about this appointment is that Freeman had actually failed to have been vetted regarding his finances and financial ties at the stage of the process where he withdrew his name from consideration. The only logical reason for this would be a desire to avoid what measure of public scrutiny would inevitably follow until opposition to the appointment had been rendered all but moot. Thus, Freeman’s desire to have it both ways – insisting on his personal integrity and independence from Saudi and Chinese government influences whilst resisting by delay disclosure of his financial ties (past and present) to regimes he has served as semi-official apologist for – did him in, not the “Israel lobby.”
Speaking personally, I am actually sorry that Freeman withdrew at this stage of the process. It would have been more than nice to have seen his extensive ties to China, Myanmar and Saudi Arabia made public. Then Freeman would have been exposed for being the corrupt satrap that he is.
You’re correct Eric. Why would tempest in the right-wing media bring down Freeman? Because the MSM was silent, this was largely inside baseball, not something the average voter or citizen would know about.
I guess that the potential findings of the IG were quite a bit more damaging. Unfortunately the media’s lack of due dilligence into Freeman’s financial interests, means that the news of the appointment focuses on the “pro-Israel” crowd and its supposed influence, not his likely conflicts of interest.
This wasn’t really on the mainstream or public radar but it’s fairly clear this guy was blocked by the pro Israeli lobby. While not on the public radar it’s very much on the Washington radar and therefore, like so much activity by Israeli lobby likely to prove counterproductive unless of course you think ticking off the new president’s national security and foreign policy team is an effective way to win friends and influence people. It doesn’t seem very likely to me but the far right is so obsessed by it’s hobby horses they seem to have lost sight of human nature.
Arguing that someone’s dismissal was unjustified solely on the basis that that individual was brought down by a “lobby,” rather than offering up any definitive reasons why that individual SHOULD be confirmed in their appointed position, isn’t an argument, it’s a whine. Plain and simple. Case closed.
Otto, if the “Israel Lobby” actually did derail this appointment (one which did not need Senate confirmation) then it has, once again, did our country a great service. Having kept out someone who is totally corrupt and having brought that corruption to the attention of a media which presumes that Democrat appointees must always get a “pass” is that great service.
Far from proving counterproductive this incident shows that vigilance will be vindicated. The Administration, burned on so many other appointments, could not take additional heat.
If you came home and found your wife in bed with the heating-repair man – and he insisted that they were just talking – would he convince you, as he pulled on his pants?
When AIPAC supporters insist that accusations of undue influence on Washington and on US foreign policy are just imaginary nonsense – are you convinced, as you and other taxpayers fund Israel’s illegal settlement expansion, demolition of East Jerusalem homes and its continuing wars of occupation?
When Israel insists that Iran is within 4 weeks, or whatever, of building a nuclear bomb – are you convinced that the rhetoric is not just propaganda intended, by the already most powerful nuclear state in the Middle East, to incite the US to join the next world war?
When Iran is hit with nuclear warheads, and the attacker(s) insist it is in self-defence and not to retain hegemony in the region – will you be convinced, as the price of your gas doubles and the Dow Jones falls below 4000?
Think quietly about it – are you really that gullible or are you an educated, sensible guy (or gal) who can recognize a duck, as it waddles across the road in front of your house?
For myself, I want no part of the increasing drumbeat to war by those who inevitably will stay out of harm’s way themselves. By those who are adept at using words to sway political opinion and provoke military action – but who have never carried a rifle or gone without food. These are the people we need to beware of – because they can, and will, shorten our lives.
Postscript:
I have a close family member who has now left Israel after over 30 years. He has no regrets about his decision, and neither have I.
Neocontender #1 is easy enough to translate; with #2-3, the only landmark that rises clear above the stylistic mist (“mushy lung”? Golly!) is that this neocomrade certainly means no good at all to peace-processers.
As to #0, how come a short factious scribble in which almost every proper name has a URL attached to it leaves the most thrillin’ agitprop stroke for Hyperzion completely naked? I refer to those fiends who have allegedly been “simplistically arguing that Freeman’s pro-Israel critics were wrong by virtue of their existence.”
I assume (1) that the fiends consider the Hyperzionists to be wrong by virtue of the existence of the Hyperzionists, although it is conceivable that they, being fiends, after all, take the line (2) that now that J-Street fiendishness, so to label it, has come to exist, everybody else is wrong unless she signs up at once.
Either opinion would be an interesting specimen of brain disease, but alas! no patient in particular is named, let alone cited, as saying either “You are wrong just because you exist” or “You are wrong just because We exist.”
Who has actually advanced one formula or the other, whether ‘simplistically’, or in the manner of Neocontender #2, or in the manner of Prof. Hegel, or in the manner of M. de Nabókov, or in any other not-so-simple manner that those of us way out here on Z Street in the boonies can be expected to decrypt?
Somethin’ not altogether unlike (2) is common enough at Wingnut City and Rio Limbaugh, a real (i.e., subjectively sincere) discomfort on the part of Narcissus Dexter at havin’ to share the world for probably the whole rest of his life with vexatious persons who radically disagree with WC/RL opinions and ‘values’. Master Narky approaches the neo-Levant the same way he approaches many other controversies: should he condescend to take an interest at all, his actual cogitation seems to be confined to decidin’ which team to root for. Once that point is fixed, Narky’s partisan behaviour can be pretty accurately predicted by (2). Narky is with the Boston Red Socks and the Tel Aviv Tornadoes, and if don’t holler for ‘em too, why, you are wrong. Nay, you are W*R*O*N*G!!!
That’s a very plain Q.E.D. with Master Narky, as Neocontender #1 might say.
Once upon a time, I am told, the Century XIX Spanish equivalent of Wingnut City rallied around a banner with the rather strange device _¡Nosotros somos nosotros!_ This epidemic was probably brain disease (2) again, although it might also have been an appeal to social climbers.[*] And perhaps there are other possible ways to fill in the blank that slogan leaves in one’s mind that I have so far failed to think of.
I daresay it may be tactically useful for Neocomrade #0 not to mention the exact names of those of his patients who “simplistically argue that Freeman’s pro-Israel critics were wrong by virtue of their existence.” He may run into some of them in the Yard, after all. MESH may be formidable, but MESH has not yet perfected its monopoly even locally. Miserable creatures like Dr. Sara Roy still lurk in dark corners of ZipCode 02138.
http://www.campus-watch.org/survey.php/id/13
_Suaviter in modo, fortiter in re_, that’s the ticket, surely! In any case, the fiends know who they are. For that matter, so do the Hyperzionists. From here on Z Street, I do not quite see that either crew is well described as “some amorphous ‘lobby’”. Admittedly, the difficulty may be that it is certainly not us humble that any of them are lobbying.
From other accounts it appears that Senator Schumer of New York (where else?) may have been the _lobbiandus_ _par excellance_. It would be instructive, I suspect, to have a look at his office’s record of phone calls and e-mails for the last couple of weeks. Of course such sensitive information is classified and will assuredly remain so. Was his staff unduly pestered by supporters of the J-Street fiendishness? I strongly incline to doubt it, but it would be nice to have solid evidence.
‘Amorphous’ or not, the anti-Freeman campaign (and the pro-Freeman ditto if there was one) should probably be called something other than ‘lobbying’ _sensu stricto_. Since the pols and the funds of the Tel Avîv government were certainly not behind it except as well-wishers, one cannot call it PubDip™ — “public diplomacy” — exactly, either. This little circus was indeed an attempt to influence the foreign policy of the holy Homeland™ by appealin’ to Televisionland and the electorate to appeal to Senator Schumer _et al._ to appeal to the Executive Branch — but since the hidden persuaders were quite as Homelandic as thee or I, ‘diplomacy’ would be a very misleading label to paste on it.
One does not speak of ‘diplomacy’ when Dr. Limbaugh commissions his peasants to shoulder their pitchforks and warn Comrade POTUS to knock off the ‘socialism’. One does not call that show ‘lobbying’ either, though. Or at least I don’t think anybody does. The parallel is not quite perfect, to be sure: no persuader was ever less hidden than Citizen Rush! But the morale of that is that once we have picked a new word for X, we must distinguish “overt X” from “undercover X.”
Neocomrade Judge R. Bork became a four-letter verb in a vaguely similar situation years ago, but Ambassador Freeman does not seem to me to possess quite the stature that would be required to congratulate Neocomrade #0 and his ideobudies on a successful ‘freemanisation’.
In light of the cheerful pastoral atmosphere of bipartisanship that obtains at present, perhaps one would not be misunderstood if one were to diagnose that Charles Freeman just got borked?
Happy days.
(( Hmm. While I scribble mostly for the Muses and myself, Neocontenders #4 through #9 have showed up for the joust. Very briefly, #5 looks like bein’ a bad winner. Had he gotten his druthers, though, it is possible that the fiend Freeman would turn out not to be a wholly owned subsidiary of _les altesses royales du Ryad_. We shall never know for sure.
#6 ditto: he is not satisfied with an undercover borkin’ but demands *public* execution of his faction’s enemies. #7 strikes me as a wishful thinker. #8 seems not to understand that the President still possesses a smidgen of unilateral and preëmptive patronage whereby “I want Chas” is good enough for government purposes. #9 thinks wishfully too, but in the opposite direction from #7.
#10 drags in adultery, which is as much fun as it is unexpected. But the rest of his rant is simply thrown away on the Commentariat and the Weekly Standardisers. ))
__
[*] Agitation about the Palestine Puzzle can be understood in terms of social climbing. The fiends want their views to become respectable in various circles of the holy Homeland™. Hyperzionists specifically, and militant extremist GOP neocomrades in general, will fight fiercely to prevent any such breakdown of civilised standards as that. This line of analysis is a bit more decorous than Master Narky’s Saturday afternoon football game, it is more like a really nasty reception at the Faculty of Arts and Sciences cocktail lounge. Of QED in the strict sense, however, there is little to choose between the two.
” If they insist on blaming some amorphous “lobby,” they should start by reexamining their own”
non jewish or zionist “trolls” at this forum are scratching their heads at the combination victory celebration and denial of influence by …the lobby-type-thing. how can chuck schumer, commentary and co hi five each other and commend each other on a job while done while also denying they have anything to do with it? here is how it works:
AIPAC and co don’t deny there is a lobby. they deny there is a “lobby”. that is, a NEGATIVE “nefarious ” lobby.
so what, you say. of course it’s not negative to them they believe in it, but it’s still a lobby.
yuo are right, but they don’t see it that way. you;ll notice whenever they deny they exist they say something like “some evil cabal ‘ or something like that.
it’s the same with the dual loyalties issue. hard core zionists DO have dual loyalties. they jsut don’t have “dual loyalties” . they don’t have the evil kind, but the good kind.
if you are saying to yourself, this is just a fancy way of lying…you’re right!!
If it was indeed the sneaky Jews we hear so much about in left wing blogs, who torpedoed Freeman”s appointment, the Country owes them a debt of gratitude.Nothing positive could come of having this authoritarian crackpot occupying a high profile intelligence position.He should continue to shill for the House of Saud and the butchers in Beijing from whence his income originates.
Lobbying is a constitutionally protected activity; lobbying for close, friendly relations with a particular country is as legitimate as any other lobbying; lobbying for close, friendly relations with a fellow democracy that always supports us internationally and severely limits the powers exercised by tyrannies and fanatics is salutary; effective lobbying is very rarely the only reason for some decision–lobbying will be most effective in a confluence with other factors, in this case the fanaticism, virulence and close associations of Chas Freeman with extremely disreputable figures. There is no “contradiction” anywhere. Whatever role pro-Israel writers and activists had in sinking the nomination, their effectiveness was due to the remarkable defects of the candidate himself. Thus, there is cause for celebration at a job well done because the media wanted to turn their heads and crucial materials were brought to light; and denial of the existence of some all-powerful lobby is equally appropriate. There are plenty of candidates pro-Israel people would not be able to make a dent in. Maybe they look powerful because they tend to choose those fights they are likely to win.
“One of the first congressmen to raise questions about Freeman, Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), said yesterday that he spoke of his concerns last week to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and later sent him materials about the former ambassador’s statements and associations. Israel, a member of the House Appropriations Committee’s Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, said in a telephone interview that “as I was leaving the White House this afternoon, they told me of Blair’s statement” of Freeman’s withdrawal. “I think Blair’s defense of Freeman was indefensible, and people in the White House realized that.” ”
from the washington post.
can’t miss the symbolism “israel” attacking a “free man”
Discovering lame symbolism is a sure sign of an exhausted argument. Did any of the anti-Israel commentators on this affair ever say what they actually liked about this “Free man”?
Anti-Israel lobby, pro-Israel lobby, who really cares. As long as this particular cat got skinned. Strike one, Admiral Blair.
Dear Colindale,
Caution. If you read this, you might kill yourself. Israel has a right to exist. The so-called Palestinians are a gang of thugs. You doubt this? Arafat was not a thug? Then Stalin was not a thug? So where are you coming from? Get the message? What more is there to talk about?
Note to Colindale: It sounds as if you speak from experience and know what you’re talking about (at least where it comes to encountering your wife in bed with the “heating-repair man” and watching him pull up his pants while telling you they were just talking).
This was obviously the work of the Zionist Lobby and their cheering section of Neo-Con Jews and Christlamic fanatics. If they think they did Israel a favor by exposing – once again, their dual loyalty – I don’t see it…
“anti-Israel commentators on this affair ever say what they actually liked about this “Free man”?”
I liked the fact that he doesn’t prostrate himself for Zionist war mongers who won’t be happy until AMERICA starts dropping bombs on MORE Muslim nations – and invades Iran. Typical parasites – get the big boys to do their dirty work…
JHM (Re: #11)
No.
You are wrong because if one examines cultural deappropriation, one is faced with a choice: either reject structuralist neodialectic theory or conclude that the raison d’etre of the observer is social comment. However, as in All Tomorrow’s Parties, Gibson reiterates nihilism; in Pattern Recognition he analyses cultural deappropriation. The subject is contextualised into linguistics that includes language as a totality. It follows that we have to choose between nihilism and cultural theory. The postpatriarchialist paradigm of context states that consensus is a product of communication, given that the premise of cultural deappropriation is invalid. =
= A gobbldegook Gotcha! perpetrated by Tom Paine
Eric T. could you please deconstruct Max Blumenthal’s piece at The Daily Beast (or add him to the Walt’s of this world ?. The header of his piece reads:
“The Daily Beast’s Max Blumenthal reported that the leader of the campaign against Freeman was Steven Rosen, a former director of AIPAC awaiting trial on espionage charges, who has a long history of attacking and undermining anybody he deems hostile to Israel.”
This is preposterous…
Thanks!.
Also, Eric T. could you also deconstruct Glenn Grenwald”s at Salon? This people are blindly defending
Freeman without the decency of answering ANY of the criticisms.
They repeat verbatim–Freeman’s words- that *everything* was taken out of context… Really?
Many of Freeman’s statements in full are available and there is no honest logic that
makes what Freeman said defensible…
The basis for approving political appointees and advisors changed when the opponents of Judge Robert Bork used ad hominum attacks and out of context quotes in a campaign to prevent his appointment to the US Supreme Court. Regardless of who started it, both sides now use the techniques and criteria of the Bork conflict to undermine and oppose their opponents.
I’m sorry to say that I am beginning to believe that the U.S. people and government has let a small group of people have too great of influence on our domestic and foreign policies. Jews are less than 5% of the population but they control what our government says and does and what our news outlets print and say. Watch BBC News and then watch any of the U.S. news outlets — the difference in coverage is stark, especially when it comes to Israel.
The fact is that this guy wasn’t vetted and the appointment blew up in their face.
But I can understand why Blair would think that Freeman was qualified for the job. After all didn’t the NIE say last year that Iran gave up trying to build a nuclear bomb.
That same Iran that already has the missals to hit Israel and will have a bomb in months at most.
Seems like Freeman would fit right in.
So Sue – since there is a difference between the BBC and US News outlets then the BBC must be the one that is right.
Feel free to watch MSNBC and you won’t feel so bad.
Sue says
I’m sorry to say that I am beginning to believe that the U.S. people and government has let a small group of people have too great of influence on our domestic and foreign policies.
She’s right – obviously she is speaking about Pelosi, Obama and Reid.
I’m always amazed at those people who have little knowledge of Mideast affairs, natural history, or Biblical history. These people think that irresponsible Hamas, when it needs more money, can just increase the firing of rockets aimed only at civilians, and then when it gets invaded and loses, gets rewarded by 4.4 billion dollars for it’s irresponsibility.
Gaza was abandoned by Israel in 2005..and is NOT occupied – so that the beginnings of a Palestinian state could be started. The net result? Iran-backed Hamas. Land for peace will NEVER work when yu are negotiating with Terrorist groups. And in the Middle East, a “ceasefire” means “see you again later”. Churchill said that you must defeat your enemy so badly that they will not consider war for 100 nyears.
This is not a question about land. This is a question of shrinking, then dismantling Israel bit-by-bit until it no longer can defend itself. Fatah, Hamas, and their ilk want the death of every Jew…make no mistake about it.
Freeman, who is as corrupt as they get, actually invited Hizbullah and Hamas to set up offices in the USA.
This is the person Obama chose? I how that the USA can survive an Obama administration.
Judging by his poor International relations skills, most likely, Israel will be gone – ana yet again, the world will ask How could we allow yet another Holocaust to happen?
If peace is truly wanted, than All the western nations should line up with Israel…and show a strong face to Terrorism. Remember, that whatecver happens to Israel, will eventually occur in the USA.
“Remember, that whatecver happens to Israel, will eventually occur in the USA”
sounds like a threat
warpublican claims that Israel wants others to do its fighting for it. In fact, since Israel’s War of Independence in 1947-49, big powers, first the UK and then the USA and the others have either openly fought for the Arabs or worked to stop and reverse Israel’s victories through diplomacy.
Yet Warpublican claims that Israel wants to get the big boys to do their dirty work…
In early 1948, while the British were still in Israel, before the end of the mandate, British troops took weapons away from Jewish fighters. In one incident in Jerusalem in 1948, British troops disarmed and took captive several Haganah fighters and dumped them in front of the Damascus Gate where the Arab mob promptly murdered them. Later, the British army sent tanks and planes into the battle for Jaffa [Yafo] when the Arab forces there were losing. In early 1949, before the armistice accords were signed at Rhodes, British fighter aircraft were sent into battle against the newborn Israeli air force over northeastern Sinai.
The USA and other big powers played a role at the UN security council [insecurity council?] by demanding a truce when Israel was winning the war [summer of 1948]. They wanted to stop Israel. The same thing happened in January over the Gaza War. Israel was winning but the USA and other powers didn’t like that, so they called for a cease fire that favored the Nazi-like Hamas. l
Warpub, tell me, have you read the Hamas charter, especially Article 7, which calls for Muslims to murder Jews?
Then there’s the problem of Iran. The Euros and other Western powers have been negotiating with Iran for years. But have taken no concrete measures to prevent a development [a nuclear Iran] that threatens everybody, including Europe and the USA and various Arab states. Yet, some press reports say that the Bush admin did not want Israel to do the job by itself the way Israel had acted in 1981 against a nuclear Iraq which actually benefitted everybody, including other Arab states.
warpub, could you please try to inform yourself better and not believe drivel on Counterpunch or The Nation mag or wherever you get your silly notions [walt-mearsheimer maybe?]?
we should be grateful to warpublican – his ‘arguments’ are fact-free rhetoric soaked in venom…
he doesn’t even rise to the level of anti-semitism – he’s just an ordinary jew-hater with a moron-osyllabic vocabulary…
having him onsite makes the rest of us seem smart…even if we’re not..
Do you guys have a recommendation section, i’d like to suggest some stuff
My fellow on Facebook shared this link with me and I’m not dissapointed at all that I came here.