Motus Mentis

23 Comments

1. TheBigHenry says

   “Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”

   — Special Counsel for the Army Joseph N. Welch addressing Senator Joseph R. McCarthy

   If we are going to have a National Conversation, I would address everyone who has promulgated the lie, that the police pose a mortal threat to black Americans, by paraphrasing Joseph Welch:

   “Let us not assassinate any more police officers. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”

   And after a long silence, I would answer my own question thus: “I conclude that you have not. At long last, you have no sense of decency left.”

   Posted December 23, 2014 at 12:16 am | Permalink
2. the one eyed man says

   Heather MacDonald’s piece is replete with errors of fact and logic.

   The biggest howler is her characterization of the statement that “the criminal-justice system is biased against blacks” as an “untruth” and a “myth.” Blacks are much more likely to be arrested and prosecuted than whites (e.g., marijuana use by both races is equivalent, but blacks are much more likely to be arrested and prosecuted than whites). Incarceration time for blacks is, on average, 20% longer for blacks than whites for equivalent offenses. This extends to capital punishment, which is also applied far more often to blacks than whites for equivalent offenses. Anyone who thinks that the criminal justice system is colorblind should ask themselves what the likelihood of acquittal would be if, for instance, George Zimmerman was black and Trayvon Martin was white. Or why “stop and frisk” was never implemented on the Upper East Side, why upper class whites have a presumption of innocence and lower class blacks have a presumption of guilt, or why its discontinuance had no discernable effect on the crime rate.

   She then mischaracterizes a New York Times editorial as “justifying the Ferguson riots” (it didn’t), recalling the phony right wing attack line asserting that the Times published Darren Wilson’s address (it didn’t). She takes a line out of context and ignores the rest of the editorial.

   Eric Garner did not die because officers “provoked a heart attack.” According to the Medical Examiner, Garner died as a result of the neck compressions from the Pantaleo’s chokehold and “the compression of [Garner’s] chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police.”

   MacDonald repeatedly compares the occurrence of police-on-black killings (while ignoring the limited and unreliable data available, footnoted in the Times editorial) with the occurrence of black-on-black violence. This is a meaningless comparison. The issue is whether blacks are treated fairly by the police – or treated the same as whites are — and not the level of black-on-black violence, as though the conduct of police is in some way comparable to that of gang members and criminals.

   Michael Brown was not a “would-be cop killer.” He was unarmed and twenty feet away from Wilson when the latter shot him six times. There were several witnesses, in addition to Dorian Johnson, who testified that Brown’s arms were up in surrender when he was killed. The situation was murky – we’ll never know what actually happened – but it was not the open-and-shut case which MacDonald posits.

   Bill de Blasio and the New York Times rightly condemned the death of Eric Garner, but never called for violence or retribution. This does not stop MacDonald from implying that they are responsible for a deranged gunman from Maryland killing two cops. By her logic, Bill O’Reilly is responsible for the murder of Dr. George Tiller after repeatedly calling him a baby killer; Sarah Palin is responsible for the shooting of Gabby Giffords after telling her followers “don’t retreat, reload;” right wing hate radio is responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing after Timothy McVeigh bought into their anti-government agitprop; the NRA is responsible for attacks on government agents after calling them “jack-booted thugs;” the relentless IRS bashing at Fox News is responsible for Joseph Stack killing two people when he flew his plane into an IRS building; their anti-Muslim hysteria is responsible for the massacre of Sikh worshippers in Wisconsin; and Sean Hannity and the other Cliven Bundy supporters are responsible for five deaths after Jared and Amanda Miller killed five people after attending the Bundy stand-off and vowing retribution. What de Blasio and the Times said was hardly incendiary. This cannot be said of O’Reilly, Palin, etc. Yet MacDonald avoids this obvious parallel. Incendiary talk will provoke unstable minds from committing horrific deeds.

   Speaking of Cliven Bundy: Eric Garner sold loose cigarettes, which are taxed at about thirty cents each. Cliven Bundy refused to pay well over a million dollars in taxes. Eric Garner never threatened the police. Bundy and his followers pointed loaded rifles at BLM agents. Eric Garner never threatened innocents. The manly men of Bundy’s ranch used women as human shields. You’ve already states that the police were justified in killing Garner, because summary capital punishment is a suitable response for resisting arrest. One would think that you would have applauded wildly if the BLM agents — aided by a drone, perhaps — massacred the rebels at Bundy’s ranch for offenses which were exponentially greater than anything Garner did. Yet this is the exact opposite of what you wrote at the time. Why do you suppose that is?

   Posted December 23, 2014 at 3:27 am | Permalink
3. The one eyed man says

   Translation of “The police could end all killings of civilians tomorrow and it would have no effect on the black homicide risk, which comes overwhelmingly from other blacks:” Blacks are killing other blacks in horrifying numbers; what’s the big deal if the cops kill a few more?

   Re Cliven Bundy: if there is a case to use lethality with Eric Garner, that case is exponentially greater with Bundy and his followers. Not only was the offense far greater, but – unlike Garner – the ranchers were heavily armed, pointed loaded weapons at federal agents, and posed a clear and immediate danger of mass murder. Yet had there been a lethal response, the reaction from Bundy’s apologists would have been deafening. Garner’s death is excused as a necessary means to enforce the rule of law, while the far more dangerous men in ?Nevada are left untouched. Why the disparity?

   Posted December 23, 2014 at 9:32 am | Permalink
4. The Anti-Gnostic says

   Blacks are killing other blacks in horrifying numbers; what’s the big deal if the cops kill a few more?

   That’s kind of the whole point. Blacks are disproportionately engaged in violent, disruptive and criminal behavior. So they get arrested more, and bad things happen to them.

   The root of the problem is the two societies, black and white, are completely incompatible. They should separate now before the conflict escalates.

   Posted December 23, 2014 at 10:53 am | Permalink
5. TheBigHenry says

   “The root of the problem is the two societies, black and white, are completely incompatible.”

   There is a big problem, but, IMHO, that is not the root.

   The root that seems obvious to me is the entirely incompatible worldviews of the “progressive” leftists and conservatives. The former cling to their fantasy of the perfectibility of human nature; the latter understand the hopelessness of that fantasy.

   Posted December 23, 2014 at 12:49 pm | Permalink
6. Malcolm says

   And… here we go again.

   Right up front, let me say that one of the biggest issues here, and the thread that connects all of these topics, is overcriminalization. With regard to Cliven Bundy and Eric Garner, my remarks have been consistent: that both were indeed in violation of the law, and that the proper target of outrage is the obscene proliferation of overlapping and unnecessary laws at all levels. This is a system that, by defining far too much behavior as criminal, and by, among other things, often criminalizing a single act under a large number of ‘stackable’ offenses, puts far too much arbitrary power in the hands of police, prosecutors, regulators, and courts. The law is so vast, so tangled, and so incomprehensible that any one of us can be charged with some felony or other if it suits the government to do so. That means that the criminal status of every American depends on, not the austere ‘rule of law’, but on the whim of officials at every level of the government. As Voltaire said: “The sovereign is called a tyrant who knows no laws but his caprice.”

   That said, there are reasons why blacks are more likely to be arrested than whites, foremost of which is that they commit far more violent crime, per capita (the kind of crime, that is, that we will all agree is not overcriminalized), than whites. (In New York, for example, blacks and Hispanics commit well above 90% of all gun assaults.) Black neighborhoods attract far more attention from the police than white neighborhoods, because that’s where the crime rates are highest, and that’s where most of the 911 calls come from. The reason that more aggressive policing methods aren’t applied in affluent white neighborhoods is simple and obvious: the nearly nonexistent violent-crime rates in those neighborhoods don’t justify it. (Willie Sutton would understand all of this.) As for sentencing disparities, you neglect to consider that in the case of ‘equivalent offenses’, offenders with prior records get longer sentences, and that, given the higher rate of overall crime committed by blacks, the percentage of black convicts with priors will tend to be higher also. (Eric Garner had 31 priors, by the way, and the NYPD assassin Brinsley had 19.) It’s a good, and important, thing to winkle out genuine racism where it actually exists, but it’s quite another to go witch-hunting for it in order to distract attention from uncomfortable realities.

   I have a good friend who was, at one point, the NYPD commander for the Bronx. He later went on to become the chief of police in Minneapolis. While in Minneapolis he launched an undercover operation using decoys to catch muggers and rapists. The people arrested were overwhelmingly black. This provoked predictable outrage. My friend (who is, by the way, a dedicated man of the Left) explained: “Hey,” he said, “they’re mugging us!”

   As for any idea that the police are out to gun down blacks because of racism, I’ll point out that in 2012, according to the NYPD’s annual Firearms Discharge Report, the number of blacks killed by police was only three-quarters of the number of blacks who shot at the police — which indicates, I think, not a murderous racist jihad, but restraint. If people seem keen on bringing up the fact that police killings of blacks are a drop in the bucket compared to black-on-black murder, it’s only because those who are ginning up all this racial resentment about police deliberately slaughtering blacks are guilty of a highly manipulative ‘mote-and-beam’ diversion.

   Regarding Garner: he died, most likely, of positional asphyxia. When men of his cetacean bulk are held prone in the way he was, they can die in the same way beached whales do, namely that their organs are compressed by their great weight. (The man was, by all accounts, a heart-attack waiting to happen.) I agree, though, that he ought not to have died that day, in that way; his arrest was the result of aggressive enforcement of a cigarette tax. His death had little or nothing to do with race, though: the task force that made the arrest was dispatched by a black commander, and the arrest was supervised, on the scene, by a black sergeant. It had a lot to do with overcriminalization.

   Regarding Brown: of course he was a ‘would-be cop killer’. He reached into Darren Wilson’s car and tried to take the officer’s gun. Presumably his impulse was to use it.

   Regarding the management of this racial tempest by our ‘leaders’: at every turn, the Four Horsemen of the Racial Apocalypse have done whatever they can to side with, and give aid and comfort to, those making inflammatory accusations of murderous racism against the police. Most recently, Bill De Blasio associated the Garner affair with ‘centuries of racism’, and said that his mixed-race son was at risk from the cops. Messrs Obama and Holder have declared their racial allegiance at every opportunity. And so on. It is, to put it mildly, not helpful.

   That’s about all I’ll have time for. (No doubt you’ll be back with another extended salvo, but I’m very busy at work today, so I’ll likely leave it here.) I’ll say it one more time, though: a huge part of the problem here is excessive criminalization, which necessarily produces excessive arrests (with all that that entails), and excessive punishment. Add to that the fact of disproportionately high black crime rates (always and everywhere, but surely exacerbated by decades of enormously destructive social policy), and stoking of racial resentment by prominent public figures, and you get a very flammable mixture.

   Posted December 23, 2014 at 1:36 pm | Permalink
7. Whitewall says

   Well, some of the wind is out of my sails or maybe some of my thunder now gone. But this effort of “black victims of racist cops” stems most recently from the Trayvon Martin episode during which Jesse Jackson proclaimed “we need to turn this moment into a movement”. His movement people have been waiting for an incident to seize on.

   We are not witnessing the killing of certain blacks by cops as “the problem”. This is only the final symptom of the problem: Five decades of failed social welfare Liberalism. This failure has engrained a deep dysfunction within the black family and community at large. This community has to live with it and the evidence can be seen on houses with iron bars on the windows and doors–honest people inside, thugs roaming outside.

   Posted December 23, 2014 at 1:57 pm | Permalink
8. Malcolm says

   Boy, Hizzonner’s having trouble finding any love from anybody now.

   Posted December 23, 2014 at 5:15 pm | Permalink
9. JK says

   MacDonald repeatedly compares the occurrence of police-on-black killings (while ignoring the limited and unreliable data available…)

   Larry Elder (via Bill V., here):

   Figures from the CDC via Larry Elder

   In 2012, according to the CDC, 140 blacks were killed by police. That same year 386 whites were killed by police. Over the 13-year period from 1999 to 2011, the CDC reports that 2,151 whites were killed by cops — and 1,130 blacks were killed by cops.

   Police shootings, nationwide, are down dramatically from what they were 20 or 30 years ago. The CDC reported that in 1968, shootings by law enforcement — called “legal intervention” by the CDC — was the cause of death for 8.6 out of every million blacks. For whites the rate was was .9 deaths per million.

   By 2011, law enforcement shootings caused 2.74 deaths for every million blacks, and 1.28 deaths for every million whites. While the death-by-cop rate for whites has held pretty steady over these last 45 years, hovering just above or below the one-in-a-million level, the rate for blacks has fallen. In 1981, black deaths by cop stood at four in a million, but since 2000 has remained just above or below two in a million.

   Also from Mr. Elder:

   Is it relevant that St. Louis, near Ferguson, recently had the third-highest per capita murder rate of any large city (with 250,000 or more residents) in America, ranking behind New Orleans and Detroit? And, according to an analysis of 2011 FBI crime stats, St. Louis had the second-highest overall crime rate among large cities.

   Is it relevant that the state of Missouri ranks second among states in per capita black homicide victimization rate? According to the Violence Policy Center, only Nebraska has a higher per capita murder rate for black victims, based on 2011 FBI data.

   Last year, according to FBI statistics, more than 6,300 blacks were homicide victims, or almost 18 per day, almost all at the hands of other blacks. Even more disturbing, a decreasing number of murders are “cleared” (solved). In 1961, 93 percent of all homicides were cleared. That number now is down to 64 percent in 2013, primarily because of drug and gang-related murders where people don’t talk because of a “no snitch” culture or fear of retaliation.

   Posted December 23, 2014 at 5:28 pm | Permalink
10. TheBigHenry says

    The Coalition for “Act Now to Stop War & End Racism” (ANSWER) has a novel plan of action. It includes ignoring racist assassination of on-duty peace officers. Now that’s irony, bro.

    Posted December 23, 2014 at 6:00 pm | Permalink
11. JK says

    New word for the day (maybe from here on out).

    Victicrat.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/10/02/when_paul_became_muhammad_124156.html

    Posted December 23, 2014 at 6:21 pm | Permalink
12. TheBigHenry says

    Re: ANSWER’s ironic plan of action …

    It reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw a long, long time ago in Albuquerque, NM (your car couldn’t survive such a sticker today):

    “Help put an end to rape. Say yes.”

    Posted December 23, 2014 at 6:22 pm | Permalink
13. Whitewall says

    Big Henry….(ANSWER)…again? That is an amalgam of left over breech birthed Stalinists and Red Diaper Babies if my memory is correct? Someone needs to pull the flush handle if they are involved.

    Posted December 23, 2014 at 7:42 pm | Permalink
14. TheBigHenry says

    Let’s face it. None of this BS is worthy of a so-called National Debate. (It is a bit of guilty fun, however).

    But, in all seriousness, let me say this about that. Stalin once famously quipped, “One man’s death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.” Well, easy for him to say, he being a murderer of millions.

    But in the present discussion, in which we hotly debate the deaths of several individuals, some guilty of prior wrongdoing and others not, the deaths are tragic (as most deaths are), but only in an anecdotal sense. Not merely a statistic, but also not worthy of national debate.

    I submit that this debate is little more than what used to be called a “flame war”. And as with all flame wars, the generic comment is, “I am right. And you are a f*cking idiot.”

    Nevertheless, there are issues facing us that are worthy of national debate. But before we could even contemplate the nature of these issues, we would require some modicum of a quorum or consensus about what divides us as the once-great society we used to be.

    Racism ain’t it. It’s a trumped-up issue, stoked by execrable people and glommed onto by both low-information/high-anger people and holier-than-thou self-aggrandizers.

    Those of us who have some knowledge of history realize, the gold standard for national debate was our Constitutional Convention of 1787. That great debate cosidered the great and far reaching issues of a new nation. It included a number of hotly contested ideas that divided very strong proponents of opposing views. And these socio-economics geniuses managed, miraculously, to create what is, arguably, the greatest social contract known to man.

    Posted December 23, 2014 at 7:46 pm | Permalink
15. the one eyed man says

    I was hoping for a more lucid response.

    Your first paragraph is wholly irrelevant. Even if we accept, arguendo, that there is “far too much arbitrary power in the hands of police, prosecutors, regulators, and courts,” it has nothing to do with either Garner or Bundy. They didn’t pay their taxes. There is nothing arbitrary or capricious about this. We have been collecting taxes on land and tobacco since the days of the Founding Fathers, and nothing can be simpler or fairer than collecting a tax on goods sold, land owned, or cattle ranched.

    Your second and third paragraphs are also wholly irrelevant. Your first assertion — that there are higher crime rates in black neighborhoods, necessitating greater police presence — has nothing to do with the central issue of both cases, which is whether blacks receive the same treatment under the law as whites. You are confusing the volume of law enforcement with the quality of law enforcement. The issue is not whether there are too many cops in Staten Island or Ferguson. It is whether their use of deadly force against unarmed citizens was appropriate, and whether white citizens in exactly the same circumstances would have suffered the same fate.

    Your second assertion — that sentencing disparities reflect factors such as prior arrests —is relevant but incorrect. Blacks receive higher sentences than whites who are similarly situated, which eliminates these factors from consideration.

    http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/black_prisoners_tend_to_serve_longer_sentences_than_whites

    While the shooting of unarmed blacks gets the headlines and causes fear out of proportion to its actual incidence — much like people fear shark attacks, even though they rarely happen — the more basic problem is not shootings, but the day-to-day harassment which blacks endure from the police. An article from your local journal today helpfully illustrates this:

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/12/black-cops-say-they-get-racially-profiled-too.html

    Your fourth paragraph is also incorrect. MacDonald asserted that Garner died of a heart attack. He did not die of a heart attack. Granted, it is somewhat pointless to chide conservative writers for inattention to facts and evidence. After all, if they cared about facts and evidence, they would be liberals.

    The paragraph’s last sentence is completely wrong. Garner’s death had nothing whatsoever to do with “overcriminalization.” If the state taxes merchants for selling a product, then it must necessarily sanction those who sell the product without collecting the tax. Ditto for Bundy. He wanted to graze his cattle on federal land without paying for it. Complaining about “excessive criminalization” because Garner and Bundy refused to pay taxes is as silly as blaming government regulations when you get a ticket because you didn’t feed your parking meter. The laws which Garner and Bundy disobeyed are simple, fair, and necessary. Blaming their deaths on the laws, and not the way those laws were enforced, is a risible effort to distract from the obvious.

    Understandably, you completely avoided the central question: if lethality is legitimate with Garner, then why not with Bundy? Answering the question requires eliding two irreconcilable conservative principles: the notion that any and all force is legitimate when used to enforce the law, and the notion that when the big, bad government seeks to enforce laws against ideologically sympathetic cowboys wearing big hats, it is the sign of tyrannical government intrusion into the lives of freedom-loving ranchers. So when a black low-life like Eric Garner is choked to death while resisting arrest, it’s a necessary component of law enforcement, but if the government used lethality to enforce the law in Nevada, it’s (the right wing portrayal of) Waco and Ruby Ridge all over again.

    However, the logic is simple. If, as you assert, the state was justified in killing Garner in order to force a recalcitrant law-breaker to submit to police authority, then it would certainly be justified in killing everyone on Bundy’s ranch, where the stakes were far, far higher. Yet had it done so, the howls of outrage from their supporters would last for decades. You can’t have it both ways. Either the state is justified in killing Garner and the Bundy supporters for their refusal to submit to legitimate authority, or it isn’t. (Spoiler alert: it isn’t.)

    So I can’t really blame you for the feebleness of your response. You don’t have much to work with here.

    Posted December 23, 2014 at 10:42 pm | Permalink
16. JK says

    While the shooting of unarmed blacks gets the headlines and causes fear out of proportion to its actual incidence [so] though they rarely happen — the more basic problem is not shootings, but the day-to-day harassment which blacks endure from the police.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/sharpton.asp

    Posted December 24, 2014 at 10:00 am | Permalink
17. JK says

    … sentencing disparities reflect factors such as prior arrests —is relevant but incorrect. Blacks receive higher sentences than whites who are similarly situated, which eliminates these factors from consideration.

    Anecdote – one I’ve only ever mentioned to one person – and never thought I’d be putting on a blog.

    May 2013. My black brother-in-law gets nicked for driving while intoxicated in my home county. Refuses the alcatest.

    I mention to him ______, “I think you might want to hire this [lawyer] friend of mine. The courts around here are very harsh on DWIs.”

    “I don’t have to worry about none of that – because there’s only a very few {from personal experience I know not to use the word my brother-in-law used on this site: LB, Dom] _______ lives around here all I got to do is say racism.”

    (Hearing that from a guy I’d never previously considered could so casually … well allow me just to say, was very disheartening. Some few minutes after, I did get quite angry and said so.)

    Court-day comes and of the six people so charged – the only one to go to the proceeding unaccompanied by an attorney is – the only one who, though losing his license for six months (automatic in Arkansas for a refusal) the only one not assessed neither a monetary penalty nor jail time was …

    Owing to my relationships to the courts and the LE community in my region I could not ‘ask around’ but I did have a friend peripherally aware and I asked, “Did the word racism come up?”

    “Yes.”

    Posted December 24, 2014 at 10:28 am | Permalink
18. JK says

    Perhaps I ought add.

    Some months later a nephew of mine – stepson to _____, gets very similarly nicked, emulates example. Court-day comes and nephew loses his state job owing to not having 90 days vacation time accrued.

    Making it difficult to pay the $2500.00 fine.

    Posted December 24, 2014 at 10:47 am | Permalink
19. Malcolm says

    Oh, stop already, Peter. The sentencing link you offer says nothing about methodology, about prior records, about plea bargains vs. trial outcomes (you always get a harsher sentence if you don’t cop a plea), about the behavior and demeanor of the convict both during arrest and throughout the remainder of the process (resisting arrest, expressing remorse vs. surly defiance, etc.), or about multiple vs. single charges, ancillary crimes, and so on. All these things are going to be a factor under judicial sentencing discretion, and it would not surprise me if blacks are differentiated, statistically, from whites in many of these ways. For you to seize on this morsel and crow “RACISM!!!” is hardly persuasive.

    As for Eric Garner’s death: he suffered cardiac arrest in the ambulance taking him to the hospital. (Granted, it is somewhat pointless to chide liberal blowhards for inattention to facts and evidence when advancing an ideological “narrative”. After all, if they cared about facts and evidence, they couldn’t be liberals.) He certainly did not die of a chokehold; there was no damage to his trachea or vertebrae, and he was speaking throughout.

    Yes, we have been collecting taxes since the days of the Founders. And that seems to be the full compass of your meditations on the subject. Is no level or type of taxation, then, arbitrary, capricious, or unjust? Suppose that the tax on cigarettes, or the fees for land use, were suddenly increased a thousandfold, on a legislative or regulatory whim. Would we not be justly vexed? Or is it your position that all laws are necessary and just, simply because they exist? Have you no sense that there is law, and then there is justice, and that the two may not always be congruent? Or do you, perhaps, think that by some miracle the current levels of New York tobacco taxes and Federal land-use regulations hit the sweet spot perfectly, and get justice exactly right? But never mind. Once again, you obstinately miss the point. You fatigue me, and I am sure you fatigue our readers as well, with your shallow and unreflective hectoring.

    To answer your question in plain terms: Yes, in point of law, the State had the authority to use whatever force it required to impose its will in both the Bundy and Garner cases (I’ve always made it clear that Bundy was indeed in violation of the law). I have written at length about this elsewhere; it is implicit in the nature of law itself. It is important to keep this fact before us always, because when we understand that the law will — must! — have this terrifying power behind it, it will focus our attention on having laws that are fair and simple and just, and that are as few in number as possible. This would be the polar opposite of the system as it exists today. But so fixated are you upon your ideological grudges and hobby-horses that you dismiss all of this as “irrelevant”.

    You seem, also, to imagine that the law does not have, or need, this power (or at least that’s what I gather from your “spoiler alert”). But this can only be true if we are all angels — and if we were all angels we wouldn’t need the law at all. It is the persistent, facile and immeasurably destructive delusion of the Left that if we simply treat devils like angels, they will come around.

    Finally, you speak of “howls of outrage” had the Feds killed Bundy. Likely so. But in the actually existing world, Ferguson lies in ashes, and mobs are marching in the streets of New York calling for the murder of police.

    Posted December 24, 2014 at 11:17 am | Permalink
20. Malcolm says

    Merry Christmas, all.

    And Pete, I’m sorry I get so exasperated sometimes.

    Posted December 24, 2014 at 11:42 pm | Permalink
21. TheBigHenry says

    QUESTION: ?

    A.N.S.W.E.R.: !

    [img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vOn1aOrosis/VJ6tUzx5tsI/AAAAAAACyVY/fEv3a3QitbU/s1600/theo5.jpg[/img]

    Posted December 27, 2014 at 11:55 am | Permalink
22. Whitewall says

    ANSWER. Soon enough the rest of the like minded riff raff will follow.

    Posted December 27, 2014 at 1:01 pm | Permalink
23. JK says

    http://libertybellediaries.com/2014/12/28/a-memorial/

    Posted December 30, 2014 at 12:21 pm | Permalink