In which a leftist writer makes an awful lot of unspoken assumptions, some right but most completely wrong, about civil war in America. Thanks to Sipsey Street Irregulars TNG for the link.
With racial tensions, inequality, and populist rage set to boil over, some fear America could be on the path to a violent confrontation between the angry Trumpies and the equally angry lefties. Before we decide to start this war, we must ask: who would win? Better to ask: who would lose? That would be America.
As police shootings and street protests stoke a national climate already heated by xenophobia, terror attacks, One might ask oneself whether the terror attacks and the "xenophobia" could be tied together?
and the unexpected success of an anti-everything brand of politics not seen in generations, many have compared 2016 to 1968, a year marked by assassinations, riots, and questions about the continued success of the American experiment. It is still early, though. By the time this is all over we may be more inclined to compare 2016 to 1860, when half of America got so pissed at the other half that a bloody civil war ensued. The violence in the 1960s was almost 100 percent caused by the left, criminals and their allies. Civil wars don't start because "half of America got so pissed at the other half." They start because one side decides to do something about the other side.
This, of course, is the worst case scenario. But it’s always good to plan ahead.
The Combatants
On the Right: Low-income white workers who were on the losing end of globalization and have become convinced that immigrants and non-white people are to blame; Billionaires; White nationalists; Angry grandpas; Fearful grandmas; Survivalists; Fox News viewers; “Car guys”; career philatelists, Inveterate racists who have no excuse. Everything you need to know to know that the author is an idiot is right there...
On the Left: Black Lives Matter activists; Bernie Sanders voters; Aging hippies; College students and professors; Legal and illegal immigrants of all nationalities; Occupy-style perma-activists; Confused self-identified pacifists. Idiot. The Billionaires are on the left.
Most, yes. But the right does have a few, though the libertarian Kochs walk on what the two parties consider both sides of the street, depending on the issue.
Strengths
On the Right: They own more guns. They may also be able to claim a higher percentage of military veterans and law enforcement officers in their ranks.
I once read that the military vote about three fourths Republican, one fourth Democrat. That may or may not currently be true.
They are more willing to blindly follow a charismatic leader into battle, leading to a more coherent fighting force. They watch a lot of UFC. They carry the revolutionary zeal of notable groups like the Confederacy and the Nazi Party. I think the elements on the right will be a good deal more scattered and divided than is assumed here. Every time some mention of civil war getting started gets started, inevitably the infighting and score settling begins, but in the virtual realm. I suspect once lead starts flying, it will fly everywhere, not just between sides. Amongst sides, rather. Again, the writer's biases are on display -- he assumes that the conservative right are "Nazis", not recognizing the brownshirts on his own side...
On the Left: They have a higher average education level, which could be useful for designing bombs and crafty booby traps.
Law degrees and PhDs in Medieval French Poetry are not markers of chemistry skills...
More than a few will discover the "red-wire, green-wire" problem...
They have a younger average age, making them more physically fit on average.
Nowadays the opposite is more likely to be true.
They carry the revolutionary zeal of notable groups like the Maoists and the Khmer Rouge. A bit of silliness. The left will no more have a monopoly on the basic aspects of warmaking than the right, such as deception, arming up, etc. What it could boil down to is experience and a willingness to be inhumane to political opponents once things get sporty. Though comparing the Left to the Khmer Rouge is always correct... Weaknesses
On the Right: High proportion of elderly crackpots could hold back fighting units when traveling for speed and distance. High proportion of rural residents could be a drawback in urban battles, when skills like navigating sidewalks and subways are necessary. Anti-intellectual tendencies could result in hostility towards “outside the box” guerilla tactics. Affinity for Donald Trump holds no combat value whatsoever. I think this jamoke would be shocked at the creativity his armed opponents would have towards committing mayhem against political opponents. I think he would be shocked at the notion of just how powerfully a spring will return to its natural shape once released. The folks on the right can read. They'll figure out the subways...
On the Left: Widespread lack of military or contact sport experience could lead to panic in the ranks when the violence begins. High proportion of urban residents could be a drawback in rural battles, when skills like living off the land or not being scared of bugs are necessary. Reggae music is an ineffective pre-war motivational tool.
Tactics
On the Right: Mass shootings. Head-on assaults on mosques, quinceanera parties, and college dorms. Lots of gunfire, everywhere. Occasional arson of libraries (they haven’t figured out the internet stuff yet). Another bit of silliness on the author's part. I will grant you that a small number on the right would not be predisposed to things internet, but the same applies to other groups on the left. Both sides regard the internet as a communications tool. He should study matters in southeastern Ukraine, where in the early going there was a tremendous amount of media posted to the internet from both sides about the war. That is until both sides started using that media to grid for artillery strikes and recon probes. Then use of the internet wound up in the hands of the leadership. It won't be a bunch of right wingers and left wingers sitting at their consoles spouting war propaganda. Those guys will already be dead, and their replacements will be posting fotos and videos for the commanders and leaders of their respective sides..
On the Left: Guerilla warfare. Elaborate ruses designed to entrap jeeps full of enemies into concealed pits. Hit-and-run attacks on churches, VFW halls, and high-rise office buildings. Lots of Molotov cocktails, homemade spears, and gunfire that is somewhat sporadic due to relatively low gun ownership in this fighting cohort. This fella unwittingly hit on the basis of an American civil war: Guerrilla actions against civil institutions. He speaks of those actions as though they are a part of normal fighting, but they are not. They are partisan acts of war to destroy one side. They will be nasty, and they will be dirty, and in the end, none of those acts will contribute to victory for the side committing them. He also speaks, if you'll notice, as if the left will have some advantage in the very basis of warfare: deception, but as Sun Tzu wrote: "All war is deception." The Outlook My outlook. It will be a gawdammed mess.
The Left’s purist ideology and youthful vigor will inevitably wane under the withering fire of The Right’s mob-like bloodlust and superior weaponry. The inevitable ugliness of the conflict will tend to erode the morale on The Left, where philosophical approval of violence is mixed at best, whereas the religious and racial zealots of The Right will only grow more emboldened, easily integrating this new war into their longstanding intellectual framework of patriotic genocide of The Other. We can expect that the next civil war, like the last one, would be explosive, bloody, and long. But we can’t expect that the good guys would win this time around. Sure we can. Democracy, freedom, liberty and conservative values will win in the end...
In the final calculus, The Left is better off parlaying its domination of the media into social victories that can be leveraged for peaceful political gain. It’s the only real choice, unless we all want to get massacred. Probably the first thing in this missive the writer has deliberately gotten right. The problem: it will apply to both sides.
Now what we need to do is take away their guns... That would be an excellent start to civil war. Can't think of a better triggering event, as it were...
#1
This guy Nolan----aside from eating Brie and tweeting, what else has he done? Ever learned basic marksmanship and safe handling of firearms? Rode the subway? There ya go. Pontificating commuter.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/18/2016 0:38 Comments ||
Top||
#3
aw look - here's your clue that this is (albeit lame) satire coz not even the most retarded leftarded bat of the lunar species could compose this seriously.
"Reggae music is an ineffective pre-war motivational tool".
No shit leftard. I love me some reggae, 4 subjects - sex politics religion and dope, wrong on all yet still compelling - da riddimz, mon.
Love (H)island patois - we have coarse anglo-saxon C words and F words - hell, Jamaican cuss word sound positively edible.
"Yeah Man, give I two a dem beef cla'ats an a cheese bombo"
Civil war? not even a good meme war, read the whole thing for laughs.
Posted by: Bov Flimbers ||
07/18/2016 2:52 Comments ||
Top||
#4
If the guns come out the trucks stop rolling. Food stores are empty in 3 days. The FSA revolt and burn the cities along with their liberal inhabitants.
#6
Farmer's markets and heavy rifles. No gas and the nearest place with food to sell, or available is 40 miles away.
In the cities think Venezuela and its Winter, very cold. No dogs around ( for some reason ), or cats either. Ammo is more valuable than currency. And you don't have any real friends, do you?
Your money won't buy anything. What else, you got?
#7
He's a complete idiot, and his ignorance is a huge part of the problem.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
07/18/2016 6:53 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Once the power and water goes off and the roads are blocked the mainly democratic cities have 48 hours before they're toast.
A dispersed enemy can beat a concentrated enemy, especially as they have a ridiculous supply train (try finding an organic quinoa meal pack to go with your civet lattes).
#14
When the power goes off in a major city during a heat wave, hundreds or thousands will start dying in 48 hours due to lack of A/C. This was responsible for a large fraction of the deaths just after Hurricane Katrina. Elderly will be the first to go. Massive evacuation of tens of thousands (safely) is only possible during peacetime. Our electric grid is ridiculously vulnerable.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/18/2016 16:27 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Charger,
When it comes to gang banging idiots vs. disciplined riflemen interspersed with vets... I'll take the right any day when it comes to killing efficiently, quickly and ruthlessly.
#26
DV - one thing to put in the "not to be forgotten file"; in a true riot where TSHHTF, concentrate on neutralizing the second and third ranks of the rioters. NOT the first rank. The professional organizers are behind the 1st/2nd ranks urging the drones onward. Take them out and the mob will break and run. Just saying.
Careful, Tony. I'm guessing what I see from you is a lot like liberal projection when defending their choice for president these last two terms.
But as Trump prepares to formally accept the Republican nomination in Cleveland, the man who actually wrote "The Art of the Deal" -- Trump's ghostwriter, Tony Schwartz -- says he deeply regrets his role in constructing Trump's public persona. Funny thing is that it seems more folks prefer Trump over any of the other Trunk candidates, and it may well be that they'd prefer him over Hillary and 0bean as well. Time will tell.
Speaking out for the first time, Schwartz, who now runs a consulting firm, now says the man he observed at close range for 18 months has little in common with the person described in the book. Unlike Hillary.
"I put lipstick on my mother a pig," he told Jane Mayer in an interview in The New Yorker. "I feel a deep sense of remorse that I contributed to presenting Trump in a way that brought him wider attention and made him more appealing than he is."
Explaining why he chose to break his silence now, Schwartz said he was terrified about what could happen if the real estate mogul is elected in November. Riiiiiight. Whenever I'm truly afraid of something, I poke it with a sharp stick. Who wouldn't?
"I genuinely believe that if Trump wins and gets the nuclear codes there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of civilization," Schwartz said, adding that if he were writing Trump's autobiography today, he would instead call it "The Sociopath." And if you were to hire Tony's firm to write a book about you, he could make you look just as good.
In the interview, Schwartz explained how he put a positive spin on Trump's personality.
Writing at the time in private journals, he described Trump as "hateful ... a one-dimensional blowhard" and told The New Yorker he disguised Trump's obsessions with money and attention. So, for the book, Schwartz conjured up false images of a warm family man with many friends and ignored contradicting details that exposed his real estate dealings as financially unstable and largely dependent on his father's success.
"All he is is 'stomp, stomp, stomp' -- recognition from outside, bigger, more, a whole series of things that go nowhere in particular," Schwartz wrote in his journal on Oct. 21, 1986, an observation he told The New Yorker disproves the speculation that Trump's campaign is a performance that disguises a more thoughtful and nuanced person behind the scenes.
"There isn't," Schwartz said. "There is no private Trump." Unlike 0bean. Whose motivations and actions align directly with what he says and are good for America.
In studying Trump, Schwartz said, he struggled to pin him down for conversations that lasted more than a few minutes, and that the real estate tycoon would often get fidgety, impatient and irritable. Unlike 0bean when "listening" to someone who disagrees with his opinion.
"He has no attention span," Schwartz said. "Trump has been written about a thousand ways from Sunday, but this fundamental aspect of who he is doesn't seem to be fully understood ... It's impossible to keep him focused on any topic, other than his own self-aggrandizement, for more than a few minutes, and even then ... If he had to be briefed on a crisis in the Situation Room, it's impossible to imagine him paying attention over a long period of time." Unlike 0bean. Who listens to what all sides have to say and contemplates it for days or weeks before coming to a balanced decision that it's OK to clean the kitchen sink with the toilet brush.
Schwartz describes Trump as having "a stunning level of superficial knowledge and plain ignorance" and seriously doubts he "has ever read a book straight through in his entire adult life." Unlike 0bean, who reads fantasy books all the time.
Trump does not dispute this characterization, telling The Washington Post in an interview published Monday that he does not need to read because he makes decisions "with very little knowledge other than the knowledge I had, plus the words 'common sense,' because I have a lot of common sense and a lot of business ability." Unlike 0bean. /notSarc
Beyond Trump's practiced ignorance, Schwartz said, he discovered what he calls Trump's "second nature" -- a habit of lying. In "The Art of the Deal," Schwartz put a positive spin on the many gaps he found between Trump's accounts for his deals and others' versions of events. Schwartz invented the term "truthful hyperbole," a rhetorical tool Trump and his attorneys have frequently fallen back on when challenged in the press or in court. Like 0bean. Who just lies and the press doesn't really challenge him, or tells them to pound sand, or just ignores them.
"More than anyone else I have ever met, Trump has the ability to convince himself that whatever he is saying at any given moment is true, or sort of true, or at least ought to be true," Schwartz said. "He lied strategically. He had a complete lack of conscience about it." Unlike 0bean.
Schwartz opened "The Art of the Deal" with claims that Trump wasn't in the deal-making business to make money.
"I don't do it for the money," Trump declares in the opening passage of the book. "I've got enough, much more than I'll ever need. I do it to do it. Deals are my art form."
But that, Schwartz now says, is a lie.
"Of course he's in it for the money," he said. "One of the most deep and basic needs he has is to prove that 'I'm richer than you.'"
His need for attention and praise, likewise, is "completely compulsive," Schwartz said.
"He's managed to keep increasing the dose for 40 years," Schwartz said. "The only thing left was running for president. If he could run for emperor of the world, he would." Unlike 0bean.
Asked to respond to Schwartz's claims, Trump told The New Yorker that he, not Schwartz, had done the writing for "The Art of the Deal," something that Howard Kaminsky, then the head of publisher Random House, denied. "Trump didn't write a postcard for us!" Kaminsky said. Unlike 0bean.
"I made Tony rich. He owes a lot to me," Trump told The New Yorker, dismissing Schwartz's criticism. "I helped him when he didn't have two cents in his pocket. It's great disloyalty. I guess he thinks it's good for him -- but he'll find out it's not good for him." Unlike with 0bean.
Trump called Schwartz immediately after speaking to The New Yorker's Mayer, accusing him of cashing in on "The Art of the Deal" and warning he could have sued him.
Schwartz -- who turned down Trump's offer to hire him to ghostwrite a sequel and who earned a shared byline, half of the advance and half of the royalties for "The Art of the Deal" -- says he doesn't "take it personally" that Trump is upset with him "because the truth is he didn't mean it personally."
"People are dispensable and disposable in Trump's world," he said. Unlike 0bean.
Schwartz, has pledged to donate his earnings from the book this year to charities that work in direct opposition to some of Trump's campaign proposals: the National Immigration Law Center, Human Rights Watch, the Center for the Victims of Torture, the National Immigration Forum, and the Tahirih Justice Center. You forgot trade, Tony. And jobs. And respect for police. And defense. And getting the country out of the red.
"I'll carry this until the end of my life," he said of lingering guilt over his role Trump's career. "There's no righting it. But I like the idea that, the more copies that 'The Art of the Deal' sells, the more money I can donate to the people whose rights Trump seeks to abridge." Call me Tony. I have an idea on how you can reduce your suffering.
#1
"I feel a deep sense of remorse that I contributed to presenting Trump in a way that brought him wider attention and made him more appealing than he is."
#3
This man, is the greatest idiot I've seen. Trump has everyone sign non-disclosure agreements Tony, have you forgotten what that means for you? You just broke it, publicly, on Trumps moment of victory.
Get ready to sell kidneys to pay off the debt you just acrued.
Posted by: Charles ||
07/18/2016 16:36 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I seriously doubt the vast majority of Trump voters are basing their opinions on the Art of the Deal.
Sunday night was just the most recent example this year of President Obama asking Congress to authorize his use of military force to fight the Islamic State.
Obama has been calling for Congress to get behind his limited military action in Iraq and Syria for more than a year now; he even sent a draft of an authorization of use of military force — or AUMF in D.C. parlance — over to Congress back in February.
There are some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who agree with Obama that Congress needs to vote one way or the other. It's the legislative branch's constitutional duty, they say.
But the president's draft is collecting dust on Capitol Hill, and his pleas are falling on party leaders whose minds are already made up not to act. That's because lawmakers have little to gain but plenty to lose by voting on whether to authorize military force that is, oh by the way, already underway and progressing with or without their say-so.
Here are three big reasons why:
1. Both sides have something to dislike about it. Should the U.S. only focus on taking out Islamic State? What about Syrian President Bashar al-Assad? Is what Obama wants too expansive or too narrow? Bringing up an AUMF for a vote would most certainly invite a messy debate about expiration dates, boots on the ground, drones, the legacy of the Iraq War — all without the guarantee anything would get passed. In other words, even as Congress seems to be okay with Obama's actual use of force, coming up with a specific use of force resolution that assuages concerns of and satisfies both sides would be a difficult trick.
2. Who wins the White House in 11 months is very much an open-ended question, and that's a disincentive for both parties to avoid this whole AUMF debate. For Democrats, what good is handing over authority to engage in Iraq and Syria if the next president is a Republican? For Republicans, what good is it giving Obama wide latitude to fight terrorism when their presidential candidates are on the campaign trail every day criticizing the president's effectiveness? With just 40 percent of the public approving of Obama's handling of terrorism of late, according to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll taken in the days after the attacks in Paris, Republicans have a solid political argument to make for why they should be in the White House. A Republican Congress voting to expand Obama's powers to fight the Islamic State might deflate that and/or change the course of an issue that isn't helping his party.
And as the threat of the Islamic State constantly evolves, it can be tough to predict what powers a president might need. Will we need to engage on the home front? Expand outside Iraq and Syria? Will we need to have this debate all over again and get a new AUMF in a year or two? There are just too many uncertainties for a Congress that doesn't cope well with them.
3. There's no immediacy. It'd be nice, Obama has said — and repeated Sunday from his office — to have a renewed AUMF. But it's also not necessary. Obama and his cabinet officials have argued they already have the authority to conduct air strikes and send in special forces in non-combat roles based on a 2001 AUMF enacted in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Having a new one wouldn't change their plans, the Obama administration has said. Sure, passing an AUMF would put them on a marginally better legal and political footing in the future. But the real reason the administration wants it is to send a message to the world that the U.S. is united in defeating the Islamic State."
That's hardly a bad thing. But the problem with that argument is that Congress acts best — or, one could argue, acts at all — when it's under pressure. It's how the 2001 AUMF and another authorization of force in Iraq a year later both got passed; President George W. Bush argued engaging abroad were matters of imminent national security.
This time around, a president arguing 'it'd be nice, but isn't necessary' isn't exactly the motivator Congress needs to take a vote on a politically troublesome and uncertain authorization of use of military force.
#3
Sorry wrong thread. Oh well, appears to fit here as well. Come to think of it, it fits with the domestic cop shootings also. Just modify 'Islamic' to... well you know. I'll just reduce the font to save space, and leave it.
With some rather high-cost skin in the game with a critical [moderate Islamic] NATO member, faithful Russian antagonist, and nifty Incirlik Air Base. Did I mention moderate Islamic NATO member ?
It would seem even more odd that, if they did have some indication, even the slightest, that they would not have instantly alerted Erdogan. Tell me, how many thousands of people were involved in the plot again ?
Of course if they (USI) knew, false flag or no, the best thing to do would be to sit back and say nothing. No Embassy evacuation, no US Citizen warning, no evacuation of Insirlik, just claim ignorance and let the kabuki dance play out.
All that's gone missing is the ring leader. Ah yes, good old Fethullah Gülen, 'living the dream' in self-imposed exile in Pennsylvania. Pakistani Dr. Shakil Afridi and filmmaker Nakoula Nakoula must be pounding their fists.
But unfortunately, USI knew nothing of the events unfolding.
From Instapundit; a rare occasion where I forward a blog post. It's about Aleppo and the starvation of 300,000 people that is about to occur there. Mr. Bay, guestposting at Instapundit, makes clear the hypocrisy of Dr. Power and, by extension, the Democratic machine.
As has been said, you can't fight for a country that you don't believe in. You can't fight for a country when you think the majority of its citizens are racist rubes. That's Dr. Power's problem right there. She doesn't believe in America, therefore she can't represent us very well.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/18/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Samantha Power want talk about Rwanda during the Clinton administration? Or how he dropped the ball in Somalia resulting in Black Hawk Down about that time? Was Slick Willy too busy with extracurricular activities at the time?
[DAWN] WHEN the rock band Bumbu Sauce wrote an anthem to Qandeel Baloch, its members probably did not think it would soon be a lament. In a recent interview with the BBC, band frontman Masterjee Bumbu explained the Qandeel Baloch phenomenon, saying that she’s a "badly behaved woman" who uses the internet to communicate; "those are two things Pakistain does not deal well with as a society: the internet and badly behaved women". His words were prescient. Pakistain’s inability to deal with Qandeel Baloch’s behaviour drove, allegedly, her brothers to murder her last week.
Owing to her brothers’ involvement, Qandeel Baloch’s murder has been termed an ’honour’ killing. Framed as such, people feel comfortable pointing to her ’bayghairat’ behaviour to justify her brothers’ heinous action. Many tweeted in support of her killing, describing her as a disgrace to Pakistain. She had received death threats during her lifetime, and comments under her social media posts frequently called for her murder. Three weeks ago, she contacted the authorities to ask for security.
Few will be surprised, then, that her death has not met with the universal outpouring of shock and horror that we saw a few weeks ago for Amjad Sabri, who was rubbed out for essentially the same reason -- a perceived transgression. The fact is, we rarely see any public dismay each time a woman is killed for allegedly speaking to the wrong man, choosing who to marry or otherwise acting against her family’s wishes. How could we? There are around a thousand such murders reported in Pakistain each year, and our society is already too brutalised to mourn each one. Moreover, because such murders are categorised as ’honour’ killings, there is a sense that the tragedy is somehow different, explicable and thus palatable.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
07/18/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[ENGLISH.ALARABIYA.NET] Regarding the treacherous terrorist attack in the city of Nice, La Belle France’s president talked of "radical Islam." But what does he really mean? Sunni and Shiite terrorism are similar.
With the Islamic State ...formerly ISIS or ISIL, depending on your preference. Before that al-Qaeda in Iraq, as shaped by Abu Musab Zarqawi. They're very devout, committing every atrocity they can find in the Koran and inventing a few more. They fling Allah around with every other sentence, but to hear the pols talk they're not really Moslems.... of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) claiming responsibility for carrying out the attack, which involved running over people by using a truck, we must be aware that Hezbollah has used similar tactics in the past. A Hezbollah leader once spoke about how gunnies can use vehicles to run over people and noted how the murderer would be smiling because he was going to paradise.
Terrorism goes beyond religion and sect ‐ a murderer is a murderer, whether he is sent by Baghdadi, to Bin Laden, Nasrallah or Mughniyah.
Terrorism is one entity where only proofs and arguments differ. The late al-Qaeda leader the late Osama bin Laden ... who doesn't live anywhere anymore... adopted Hezbollah’s method of blowing up buildings and burning embassies in the 1980s, as well as liquidations with the help of the late Imad Mughniyah, who was a senior Hezbollah figure.
Solution The main idea is to establish a moderate Islamic culture that rejects all these groups. But this cannot be achieved only through international cooperation and strong leadership in the war against terrorism.
In Europe, where freedom to express sometimes even allows dangerous holy warrior discourse, it can become a breeding ground. So what can governments do to monitor them?
It’s a tragedy and a great catastrophe that this ugly attack was carried out with the help of a vehicle but the tactic was first used by Hezbollah and copied perfectly by ISIS.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/18/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
