So last night I watched perhaps one of the greatest war movies ever made Black Hawk Down. Every time I watch it I always feel this anger well up in me at the end where it lists the soldiers that died, the events that followed and the withdrawal of troops as ordered by President Clinton two weeks later. National Security is very closely related to image. As NSC 2010 constantly stated, our image is central to our safety and stability. This constructivist view is very important. As Mark Bowden points out in his book that covers the "Black Hawk Down" story, the militants in Somalia were terrified of an American counter-strike and were offering to hand over all sorts of top level people including Aidid the de facto president/warlord of Mogadishu that the US had been hunting for six weeks. But what happened instead? Clinton called for a hasty pullout. This sent a very bad message. Osama Bin Laden who was involved in this incident supplying arms and soldiers said, "It cleared from Muslim minds the myth of the superpower... The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American Soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat" (Lowry 2003).
This put the idea into Bin Laden's mind that we were weak and could be easily defeated with brutal terrorist tactics. If they made it bloody enough for us we would give up and go home. Bin Laden increased his attacks, hitting the khobar towers, the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and the USS Cole. After all of these instead of being aggressive and attacking head on Clinton made half-way efforts with failed cruise missile strikes and in some cases not reacting with force at all. Bin Laden had all he needed to believe he could succeed with a mass casualty attack. 9/11. He drew us into Afghanistan and now nine years later we are at the most important stage. We must go hard all the way or risk inviting greater attacks upon us again by showing weakness and pulling out.
It is all about image. Will we, having taken a few hard hits to our troops and morale, give up and go home, or freaking get angry for once and show the world that America is not to be trifled with? We can not keep up this pattern of half-assing it and expect to be secure. We can already see the world starting not to take us as seriously because we put up so much dissent at home when we are at war. Terrorist tactics work perfectly for this. We don't realize it, but we are destroying ourselves by not wanting to confront what are essentially bullies. We will be in a very dangerous position if there comes a time when a rogue state such as Iran gains a nuclear weapon and does not take us seriously or think we will invest everything into stopping them from using it. This is why I worry when people think things like the Northrop Grumman poster are a joke. Having that capability is diplomacy. When you move aircraft carriers, submarines, or troops to a specific area, it is a statement. It says this is important to us and we will use force if necessary. Pulling out of places has the opposite effect. Pulling out of Somalia said, this is not important to us anymore. In fact we really haven't involved ourselves in Africa until recently. We completely dropped the ball on aiding Rwanda because of fears that were fresh in our mind from Mogadishu in 1993.
We must get rid of this fear, get angry, and show the world we're done feeling sorry for ourselves. Image determines how people react to you and we must build ours back up strong. Not the apologetic America that Obama seems to advocate, but a Liam Neeson "Taken" kind of America.
Sources: http://old.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200311041024.asp
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
The Boundaries of National Security
When we think of justifying actions of our government these days, what do we say? We say "This war is for protecting democracy!" and, "That act is for preserving freedom!", and so on and so forth. We almost always flaunt our fundamental Constitutional principles and rights--and their preservation--as justification for a controversial action. But what happens if we start justifying the VIOLATION of Constitutional rights for the preservation of Constitutional rights? It doesn't make much sense to me either! How can we sit here and actually buy that? How does it make sense for the government to abuse and ignore the Bill of Rights in an effort to UPHOLD them against the radical, violent terrorists across the globe that are actively trying to destroy them?
I don't know about you guys, but I don't see that much "wiggle room" around Due Process, a right every citizen is -clearly- given in the Bill of Rights. But hey, all the government has to do is bring up 9/11, preserving freedom, and suddenly Rendition seems like an AWESOME idea!! And privacy? Why do you need privacy unless you're doing something wrong!? HUH!??! I guess I should just "take one for the team" and acquiesce to the government tapping all of my mommy's conversations with Granny over in "hotspot" Syria. Sarcasm aside, yeah I do think there are boundaries when it comes to preserving national security. I am not asking for much really, just my own government to respect the Constitution it was founded upon. Is that really too much to ask for?
So yeah, maybe the terrorists out there are trying to destroy our democratic principles of freedom and liberty, but how can they when our own government is beating them to the punch?
I don't know about you guys, but I don't see that much "wiggle room" around Due Process, a right every citizen is -clearly- given in the Bill of Rights. But hey, all the government has to do is bring up 9/11, preserving freedom, and suddenly Rendition seems like an AWESOME idea!! And privacy? Why do you need privacy unless you're doing something wrong!? HUH!??! I guess I should just "take one for the team" and acquiesce to the government tapping all of my mommy's conversations with Granny over in "hotspot" Syria. Sarcasm aside, yeah I do think there are boundaries when it comes to preserving national security. I am not asking for much really, just my own government to respect the Constitution it was founded upon. Is that really too much to ask for?
So yeah, maybe the terrorists out there are trying to destroy our democratic principles of freedom and liberty, but how can they when our own government is beating them to the punch?
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Security: Learning how to address it
During periods of crisis, countries resort to wars as a manner to assure peace, security of human life and the preservation of mortality. Duane Cady claims that ‘warism’ is critical and morally justifiable and required, giving rise to a ‘just war’. Although many cannot see the necessity or even correlation between war and security, Kant states that "possessing good intent constitutes the only condition of moral activity, regardless of the consequences envisioned or caused, and regardless, or even in spite, of any self interest in the action the agent may have." Does this provide a pathway to a violent and militaristic country? I believe Kant and Cady provide countries that are evaluating whether or not it is just to pursue a war for security purposes should not consider an alternative due to fear of being unethical.
Countries venture and explore the possibilities of improving technology (not necessarily military build-up) in order to develop more efficient technologies that can focus on building up security. What is security though? Is it simply attacks from an outside group? Oxford Dictionary states that security is “the state of being free from danger or threat,” meaning that security issues could arise within and outside the borders.
Using this, and going slightly on a tangent, I started thinking of how security problems arise in a domestic situation. For instance, many have traced the source of a rising crime rate these previous years: the recession. Individuals become desperate to make means and end up pursuing illegal activities. As a result of the economic recession, major urban areas increase in crimes and it leads to a security problem for others in the community. Does it mean that when the United States addresses security problems, it should focus on social welfare? It’s an example where different areas in society contribute to the decrease in security, but funds to address security will not be used to address these problems.
Are environmental problems considered a security threat? For one, in the long term, human lives can be negatively affected if the environment is not dealt with. Nevertheless, is a “security council” (not a direct reference to the UN) in charge of dealing with this? Or would this be handed over to an environmental committee?
The vast problems within security force societies to develop different groups/committees that focus on addressing the issues. This gives rise to specialization and being able to effectively manage the problems.
The main idea that I’m trying to get across is that society aims at:
1. Protecting Human Life
2. Establishing Peace
Nevertheless, one must understand that different countries will interpret “peace” as either with different countries or peace within the country alone. Countries will begin to address different problems and divide it amongst different government officials. It is important to remember that war is not the only response to security problems, but if one does need to pursue it in order to accomplish its overall strategic plan, it must remember that if is genuinely using the goals as its foundation for pursuing the war, it will be morally justifiable.
When does the government take national security too far?
It is generally agreed that the main goal of the government is to protect its citizens. However, does government sometimes use this responsibility irresponsibly?
There have been a few situations in United States history when the United States has taken the matter of securing the public too far. One was during World War II, when FDR banished thousands of Japanese Americans to concentration camps. The United States forced these Japanese American citizens into camps for "protection" of the people, preemptively striking out espionage. But these people were citizens. No background checks went into choosing who would go into these camps. While racial profiling hasn't existed to such extremes in the United States since, it does still exist. Take, for example, the selecting of Muslim/Arab looking people in airports for "random" security checks.
Also, during the Bush administration, Homeland Security was established and soon enacted some "security" measures like wire tapping and sifting through the average citizen's library records. This is taking the sake of national security past the boundaries of what is acceptable--violating the Bill of Rights and personal property.
In addition, when looking at the 2010 national security document, there were a lot of not-quite-related-to-DEFENSE-OF-THE-COUNTRY points. Obama had points about combating poverty and climate change, among other things. While they are problems, they are not external forces that we can militarily protect ourselves against. The national security plan should only contain MILITARY operations. Things that you would expect the Department of Defense, National Security Agency, and Central Intelligence Agency to get involved with (among others like the FBI and maybe State Department). Can you imagine the DoD meddling with poverty? No. Climate change? maybe, but the focus would be on spotting nukes using satellite technology and designing drones.
Obama's security document is too comprehensive. In his attempt to protect the Untied States, he's stretching his resources too thin. Obama should instead focus his "security" on one or two plans of action. Maybe this is why Obama is having trouble in his first term: he's trying to please everyone.
There have been a few situations in United States history when the United States has taken the matter of securing the public too far. One was during World War II, when FDR banished thousands of Japanese Americans to concentration camps. The United States forced these Japanese American citizens into camps for "protection" of the people, preemptively striking out espionage. But these people were citizens. No background checks went into choosing who would go into these camps. While racial profiling hasn't existed to such extremes in the United States since, it does still exist. Take, for example, the selecting of Muslim/Arab looking people in airports for "random" security checks.
Also, during the Bush administration, Homeland Security was established and soon enacted some "security" measures like wire tapping and sifting through the average citizen's library records. This is taking the sake of national security past the boundaries of what is acceptable--violating the Bill of Rights and personal property.
In addition, when looking at the 2010 national security document, there were a lot of not-quite-related-to-DEFENSE-OF-THE-COUNTRY points. Obama had points about combating poverty and climate change, among other things. While they are problems, they are not external forces that we can militarily protect ourselves against. The national security plan should only contain MILITARY operations. Things that you would expect the Department of Defense, National Security Agency, and Central Intelligence Agency to get involved with (among others like the FBI and maybe State Department). Can you imagine the DoD meddling with poverty? No. Climate change? maybe, but the focus would be on spotting nukes using satellite technology and designing drones.
Obama's security document is too comprehensive. In his attempt to protect the Untied States, he's stretching his resources too thin. Obama should instead focus his "security" on one or two plans of action. Maybe this is why Obama is having trouble in his first term: he's trying to please everyone.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
National Security and its Boundaries
So here we are at the quintessential question of our age? How far is too far when it comes to national security. As a people it seems that Americans are very reluctant to have any sort of government oversight over their lives. Understandable right? Well actually I think we need to check ourselves before we wreck ourselves. Many people oppose the patriot act because of some feeling of an invasion of their privacy. Do you really think the NSA is interested in your conversation with your girlfriend? They use a complex algorithm program that picks up certain key words and phrases connected to phone calls going to locations on a watch list (The Puzzle Palace). If you aren't doing anything wrong then you shouldn't have anything to worry about. We need to get our emotions in check.
Terrorists are using our self-righteous attitude towards our privacy to their advantage. They know we do not want to be filmed as we walk down the street or be scanned as we enter a shopping mall for explosives and weapons. I think we can all sacrifice a little to allow better surveillance in public areas and allow access to our phone and email records, therefore giving us more tools to prevent attacks.
That being said, there are certain boundaries. I think the personal sphere that exists in one's home is their own and should not be impeded unless actions are taken that indicate that person is up to no good. Also the government cannot hound people unnecessarily. The fact is there are already institutions in place that prevent undue government interference in this sector.
It's important to maintain our values and I think short of mandating that every citizen provide the government with extensive details of their activities for that month or something, the government won't be going to far to be more aggressive and intrusive. If you have nothing to hide you will be passed over. We need to avoid exaggerations of saying we are headed towards a police state and realize the challenges our government faces in protecting us. Bottom line: Let's stop being selfish and realize that the boundaries of national security will be reached if every individual becomes a suspect. Realistically this will not happen as it would be a waste of time for the federal agents that work these cases.
Terrorists are using our self-righteous attitude towards our privacy to their advantage. They know we do not want to be filmed as we walk down the street or be scanned as we enter a shopping mall for explosives and weapons. I think we can all sacrifice a little to allow better surveillance in public areas and allow access to our phone and email records, therefore giving us more tools to prevent attacks.
That being said, there are certain boundaries. I think the personal sphere that exists in one's home is their own and should not be impeded unless actions are taken that indicate that person is up to no good. Also the government cannot hound people unnecessarily. The fact is there are already institutions in place that prevent undue government interference in this sector.
It's important to maintain our values and I think short of mandating that every citizen provide the government with extensive details of their activities for that month or something, the government won't be going to far to be more aggressive and intrusive. If you have nothing to hide you will be passed over. We need to avoid exaggerations of saying we are headed towards a police state and realize the challenges our government faces in protecting us. Bottom line: Let's stop being selfish and realize that the boundaries of national security will be reached if every individual becomes a suspect. Realistically this will not happen as it would be a waste of time for the federal agents that work these cases.
Non-Assigned Blog
*Note, this blog is written as a response to Christian's blog:
http://internationalintellectualforum.blogspot.com/2010/10/our-future-freedom-or-handout.html
Christian defined national security as our ability to maintain our current economic, political, and military security. Excuse me for sounding ungrateful, but as our economy rests on the precipice of oblivion and the American political game has become a pathetic, corrupt excuse for a government, my last instinct would be to maintain the status quo. Our war in Afghanistan, or “Operation Enduring Freedom” as the good old boys like to call it, has certainly lived up to its name, and after over 3,000 days and countless dollars have been futilely spent to stroke our imperialistic and war-obsessed ego, we find ourselves entangled in our nation’s longest war with no clear exit strategy. But hey, who needs an exit strategy when there is profit to be made? That’s right, Christian reminded us that we need to advance corporate capitalism, and what better way to help the greedy defense corporations than to start and maintain war? OH, and Christian also recommended a “domestic political policy that pursues national unity”…how perfect! These defense contractors fund political campaigns, and then our elected officials promote international unrest to ensure the generosity of their contributors. And in order to keep their approval rating as high as their moral indecency, politicians toss around the term “national security” while waving an American flag at a rally or a town hall – and hey, some anti-Islamic zingers never hurt anyone. When in doubt, just follow the example of Rudy Giuliani: “Blah blah noun verb noun 9/11 noun verb 9/11 blah blah 9/11,” or you can go rogue and try Palin’s “Restoring America” or “I want my country back” approach. Wow, this plan is foolproof…hell, let’s invade Iran!
I do agree, however, that we are headed in the wrong direction. Our allegedly liberal president was unable to adequately reform healthcare, regulate Wall Street, or advance his “socialist agenda.” I’m still waiting for the progressive man I elected to finally act accordingly. So calm down, Margaret Thatcher, this ain’t socialist Europe. Granny isn’t going to be terminated by a death panel, your taxes aren’t going to skyrocket, and the rich will continue to get richer while the poor wait for the day that American greed subsides. A REAL stimulus must be implemented, forcing aggregate demand to increase. A reverse income tax you propose? HAH! Turn off Glenn Beck, and open your economics book. I’ll excuse your incorrect statement that our defense spending is less than 1% of US GDP and simply inform you that the percentage you were searching for is in fact closer to 5. But wait! Cutting the defense budget is a clear political no-no – for then you would be branded an unpatriotic progressive who wants to see our soldiers massacred as they enter the battlefield, rusty musket in hand!
We ARE in fact on the precipice of a slippery slope, and if you happen to stumble upon this Marxist blood you have alluded to, please let me know.
http://internationalintellectualforum.blogspot.com/2010/10/our-future-freedom-or-handout.html
Christian defined national security as our ability to maintain our current economic, political, and military security. Excuse me for sounding ungrateful, but as our economy rests on the precipice of oblivion and the American political game has become a pathetic, corrupt excuse for a government, my last instinct would be to maintain the status quo. Our war in Afghanistan, or “Operation Enduring Freedom” as the good old boys like to call it, has certainly lived up to its name, and after over 3,000 days and countless dollars have been futilely spent to stroke our imperialistic and war-obsessed ego, we find ourselves entangled in our nation’s longest war with no clear exit strategy. But hey, who needs an exit strategy when there is profit to be made? That’s right, Christian reminded us that we need to advance corporate capitalism, and what better way to help the greedy defense corporations than to start and maintain war? OH, and Christian also recommended a “domestic political policy that pursues national unity”…how perfect! These defense contractors fund political campaigns, and then our elected officials promote international unrest to ensure the generosity of their contributors. And in order to keep their approval rating as high as their moral indecency, politicians toss around the term “national security” while waving an American flag at a rally or a town hall – and hey, some anti-Islamic zingers never hurt anyone. When in doubt, just follow the example of Rudy Giuliani: “Blah blah noun verb noun 9/11 noun verb 9/11 blah blah 9/11,” or you can go rogue and try Palin’s “Restoring America” or “I want my country back” approach. Wow, this plan is foolproof…hell, let’s invade Iran!
I do agree, however, that we are headed in the wrong direction. Our allegedly liberal president was unable to adequately reform healthcare, regulate Wall Street, or advance his “socialist agenda.” I’m still waiting for the progressive man I elected to finally act accordingly. So calm down, Margaret Thatcher, this ain’t socialist Europe. Granny isn’t going to be terminated by a death panel, your taxes aren’t going to skyrocket, and the rich will continue to get richer while the poor wait for the day that American greed subsides. A REAL stimulus must be implemented, forcing aggregate demand to increase. A reverse income tax you propose? HAH! Turn off Glenn Beck, and open your economics book. I’ll excuse your incorrect statement that our defense spending is less than 1% of US GDP and simply inform you that the percentage you were searching for is in fact closer to 5. But wait! Cutting the defense budget is a clear political no-no – for then you would be branded an unpatriotic progressive who wants to see our soldiers massacred as they enter the battlefield, rusty musket in hand!
We ARE in fact on the precipice of a slippery slope, and if you happen to stumble upon this Marxist blood you have alluded to, please let me know.
A Reflection upon a Reflection of a Reflection of a Reflection
*Note, this is a relfection to Toby's reflection of Sarah's reflection upon Christian's reflection. This is Toby's reflection:
http://bro-eignpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/10/reflection-9-reflection-on-sarahs.html
Toby,
It appears you have dissed, or attempted to at least, my gurl. Though your viewpoints seem to whip back and forth as much as Willow Smith's hair (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymKLymvwD2U&ob=av2n), I feel it is my duty to defend Sarah's honor and pinpoint some issues I found within your reflection.
I disagree with most on your points about international organizations. You say "I think it's within the U.S.' strategic interests to limit the level of commitment to international organizations", which puzzles me, Toby. If we consider this situation with the understanding that the United States is the global hegemon, and that they do in fact care about their global standing, image, and status, how is commitment to international organizations even a question? Many countries, though often reluctantly, look to the United States as a global leader and role model. Therefore, it is in the United States' best interests to be extremely active and committed in any genuine international entity. Not only to continue to set a precedent as a benevolent global superpower, but to secure it. If the United States wavers in international activity, who is to say another global superpower might take the lead in an international arena? Sure these are just "what ifs", but these are risks that can easily be avoided by active United States leadership and commitment within international organizations.
Also, you seem to have a lot of issues with international law, even stating "If international law replaced U.S. domestic law, it would undermine the Constitutional principles our nation was founded upon". Toby, I couldn't even imagine a world without international law. In this age of interdependence international law is of the utmost importance. Do you not recognize the need for regulations on an international scale especially in dealing with wars? International law is the only way to hold a state accountable for atrocities such as massacring civillians, bombing schools, and destroying hospitals. Basically, the world would be a hot mess without international laws and regulations.
You specifically cite the Law of the Sea Treaty, stating: "Policies such as the Law of the Sea Treaty, which in short, regulates who controls the seas, would allow non-state organizations to file lawsuits on countries' or multinational corporations regarding violations in the treaty. This would circumvent domestic law as international law would take precedent". How is this possibly a bad thing!? Just recently Israel was condemned on an international scale for its raid on aid flotillas approaching Gaza on international waters. In their raid on these unarmed boats with nothing but humanitarian workers and basic aid, IDF soldiers killed 9 activists. Could you imagine what would have happened if this treaty didn't exist? The entire controversy surrounding this issue is whether or not the soldiers had the right to board the ships and attack the peace activists. If international regulations hadn't stated what a state's power was in international waters, what would have followed after the raid? Laws like the Sea Treaty set standards for how a state should act in different oceanic bodies and specifically addresses the illegality for a state to attack on international waters. Thanks to international laws like the Sea Treaty, non-state organizations can hold a state accountable for breaking global standards, especially within the realm of human rights violations.
Also, you say "If international law replaced U.S. domestic law, it would undermine the Constitutional principles our nation was founded upon", and quite frankly I don't see how that is possible. When someone says "Constitutional principles", what do you think of? Personally, I think of freedom, liberty, democracy, justice, all that good stuff. I really don't see how international organizations framing what should be considered a war crime or an illegal human rights violation threatens these principles. If an international regulation is set forth to impede human sex trafficking on a global scale, I hardly see how this threatens to undermine our Constitutional principles. But now of course you will say "of course THAT wouldn't undermine our Constitutional principles, but something else could! You never know!", which I can respect, since my example was merely that, an example. Which is why I go back to my initial point that our dedication and presence in international entities is of the utmost importance. If you feel that international laws may threaten United States Constitutional principles, shouldn't that be a reason for the United States to secure an active role within international bodies to ensure our Constitutional principles are not tarnished?
Sorry Toby, but I feel like the "family business" might need a bailout.
http://bro-eignpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/10/reflection-9-reflection-on-sarahs.html
Toby,
It appears you have dissed, or attempted to at least, my gurl. Though your viewpoints seem to whip back and forth as much as Willow Smith's hair (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymKLymvwD2U&ob=av2n), I feel it is my duty to defend Sarah's honor and pinpoint some issues I found within your reflection.
I disagree with most on your points about international organizations. You say "I think it's within the U.S.' strategic interests to limit the level of commitment to international organizations", which puzzles me, Toby. If we consider this situation with the understanding that the United States is the global hegemon, and that they do in fact care about their global standing, image, and status, how is commitment to international organizations even a question? Many countries, though often reluctantly, look to the United States as a global leader and role model. Therefore, it is in the United States' best interests to be extremely active and committed in any genuine international entity. Not only to continue to set a precedent as a benevolent global superpower, but to secure it. If the United States wavers in international activity, who is to say another global superpower might take the lead in an international arena? Sure these are just "what ifs", but these are risks that can easily be avoided by active United States leadership and commitment within international organizations.
Also, you seem to have a lot of issues with international law, even stating "If international law replaced U.S. domestic law, it would undermine the Constitutional principles our nation was founded upon". Toby, I couldn't even imagine a world without international law. In this age of interdependence international law is of the utmost importance. Do you not recognize the need for regulations on an international scale especially in dealing with wars? International law is the only way to hold a state accountable for atrocities such as massacring civillians, bombing schools, and destroying hospitals. Basically, the world would be a hot mess without international laws and regulations.
You specifically cite the Law of the Sea Treaty, stating: "Policies such as the Law of the Sea Treaty, which in short, regulates who controls the seas, would allow non-state organizations to file lawsuits on countries' or multinational corporations regarding violations in the treaty. This would circumvent domestic law as international law would take precedent". How is this possibly a bad thing!? Just recently Israel was condemned on an international scale for its raid on aid flotillas approaching Gaza on international waters. In their raid on these unarmed boats with nothing but humanitarian workers and basic aid, IDF soldiers killed 9 activists. Could you imagine what would have happened if this treaty didn't exist? The entire controversy surrounding this issue is whether or not the soldiers had the right to board the ships and attack the peace activists. If international regulations hadn't stated what a state's power was in international waters, what would have followed after the raid? Laws like the Sea Treaty set standards for how a state should act in different oceanic bodies and specifically addresses the illegality for a state to attack on international waters. Thanks to international laws like the Sea Treaty, non-state organizations can hold a state accountable for breaking global standards, especially within the realm of human rights violations.
Also, you say "If international law replaced U.S. domestic law, it would undermine the Constitutional principles our nation was founded upon", and quite frankly I don't see how that is possible. When someone says "Constitutional principles", what do you think of? Personally, I think of freedom, liberty, democracy, justice, all that good stuff. I really don't see how international organizations framing what should be considered a war crime or an illegal human rights violation threatens these principles. If an international regulation is set forth to impede human sex trafficking on a global scale, I hardly see how this threatens to undermine our Constitutional principles. But now of course you will say "of course THAT wouldn't undermine our Constitutional principles, but something else could! You never know!", which I can respect, since my example was merely that, an example. Which is why I go back to my initial point that our dedication and presence in international entities is of the utmost importance. If you feel that international laws may threaten United States Constitutional principles, shouldn't that be a reason for the United States to secure an active role within international bodies to ensure our Constitutional principles are not tarnished?
Sorry Toby, but I feel like the "family business" might need a bailout.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)