[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Sounds Like They're Trying to Get Ghislaine Maxwell out of Prison Mississippi declared a public health emergency over its infant mortality rate (guess why) Andy Ngo: ANTIFA is a terrorist organization & Trump will need a lot of help to stop them America Is Reaching A Boiling Point The Pandemic Of Fake Psychiatric Diagnoses This Is How People Actually Use ChatGPT, According To New Research Texas Man Arrested for Threatening NYC's Mamdani Man puts down ABC's The View on air Strong 7.8 quake hits Russia's Kamchatka My Answer To a Liberal Professor. We both See Collapse But.. Cash Jordan: “Set Them Free”... Mob STORMS ICE HQ, Gets CRUSHED By ‘Deportation Battalion’’ Call The Exterminator: Signs Demanding Violence Against Republicans Posted In DC Crazy Conspiracy Theorist Asks Questions About Vaccines New owner of CBS coordinated with former Israeli military chief to counter the country's critics, BEST VIDEO - Questions Concerning Charlie Kirk, Douglas Macgregor - IT'S BEGUN - The People Are Rising Up! Marine Sniper: They're Lying About Charlie Kirk's Death and They Know It! Mike Johnson Holds 'Private Meeting' With Jewish Leaders, Pledges to Screen Out Anti-Israel GOP Candidates Jimmy Kimmel’s career over after ‘disgusting’ lies about Charlie Kirk shooter [Plus America's Homosexual-In-Chief checks-In, Clot-Shots, Iryna Zarutska and More!] 1200 Electric School Busses pulled from service due to fires. Is the Deep State Covering Up Charlie Kirk’s Murder? The FBI’s Bizarre Inconsistencies Exposed Local Governments Can Be Ignorant Pissers!! Cash Jordan: Gangs PLUNDER LA Mall... as California’s “NO JAILS” Strategy IMPLODES Margin Debt Tops Historic $1 Trillion, Your House Will Be Taken Blindly Warns Dohmen Tucker Carlson LIVE: America After Charlie Kirk Charlie Kirk allegedly recently refused $150 million from Israel to take more pro Israel stances "NATO just declared War on Russia!"Co; Douglas Macgregor If You're Trying To Lose Weight But Gaining Belly Fat, Watch Insulin Arabica Coffee Prices Soar As Analyst Warns of "Weather Disasters" Risk Denting Global Production Candace Owens: : I Know What Happened at the Hamptons (Ackman confronted Charlie Kirk)

Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: 'Fight the Smears' Website Admits Obama was Kenyan Citizen: Where's the MSM?
Source: newsbusters.org
URL Source: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gl ... -was-kenyan-citizen-wheres-msm
Published: Nov 28, 2008
Author: P.J. Gladnick
Post Date: 2008-11-28 04:53:28 by bluegrass
Ping List: *Tracking Comrade Obama*     Subscribe to *Tracking Comrade Obama*
Keywords: None
Views: 548
Comments: 45

Following the controversy over the authenticity of  Barack Obama's birth certificate can be a bit confusing with all its detailed analysis. Your humble correspondent will leave that up to the experts. However, in response to the charge that Barack Obama is not an American citizen, Obama's Fight the Smears website, quoting FactCheck.Org, has made a bombshell admission...Barack Obama was once a citizen of Kenya. You read that right, Obama had Kenyan citizenship until 1982. Here is the startling admission published in Fight the Smears (emphasis mine):

 “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.”

So according to Fight the Smears itself, Obama's Kenyan citizenship expired on Aug. 4, 1982 meaning he held Kenyan citizenship until that point. This is astounding and so far no mainstream media outlet has reported on it. Will some reporter out there be so bold as to ask Obama if he was a Kenyan citizen until his 21st birthday as his own website concedes? 

Until reading of this Kenyan citizenship admission, I thought the lawsuit claimng that Obama was born in Kenya filed by Clinton supporter, Phil Berg, in Philadelphia was of minor import. However, by responding to it in the way it did, the Fight the Smears website has just opened up a big can of worms for Obama in its admission that he was a citizen of Kenya until 1982.

Meanwhile, instead of simply producing the original birth certificate in court and put the matter to rest, the Obama campaign seeks to evade that action by attempting to dismiss the lawsuit entirely. Here is the latest report on this lawsuit from the Phoenixville News:

PHILADELPHIA — Presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee filed a joint motion in federal court Wednesday to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the Illinois senator to prove he's a citizen of the United States.

On Aug. 21, four days before the Democratic National Convention, Lafayette Hill attorney Philip Berg filed suit in Philadelphia seeking to remove the Democratic candidate from the November ballot claiming he was born in Kenya and not in America.

Berg asked the court for a temporary restraining order "prohibiting Obama from being formally confirmed as the Democratic Party nominee for president," according to court papers.

The Federal Election Commission was also named as a defendant in the legal action.

A day after the suit was filed, a federal judge denied the motion for a temporary restraining order.

When rumors emerged last summer questioning whether Obama was born Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii, his campaign posted a certificate of live birth on its Web site.

In a press statement circulated Wednesday by Berg's law office, the attorney insisted the Democratic candidate was born in Africa and thus ineligible to run for president.

"It is obvious that Obama was born in Kenya and does not meet the 'qualifications' to be president of the United States pursuant to our United States Constitution. Obama cannot produce a certified copy of his 'Vault' (version) Birth Certificate from Hawaii because it does not exist," the press release reads.

The suit seeks to compel the senator to produce the long version of his original birth certificate.

The motion to dismiss filed Wednesday called the suit's allegations "ridiculous and patently false," and argues the court lacks legal standing to challenge a presidential candidate's qualifications.

While Berg argued the case against Obama on constitutional grounds, Obama's attorney claims Berg must show a "specific and individualized injury" to prove standing in the case rather than a hypothetical one.

Earlier this year, a similar suit brought against Republican presidential candidate John McCain's and the Republican National Committee claimed that McCain wasn't "a natural born" citizen, having been born in the Panama Canal Zone while his father was serving in the military.

That suit was dismissed in July on grounds the plaintiff lacked standing in the case.

A minor lawsuit that seemed to be just a small irritant has now caused the Obama website to respond by admitting that he was once a Kenyan citizen. Where is the MSM on this? Which brave reporter will quote Obama's own website to him? Until now, there has been absolutely no mention in the mainstream media that we have a presidential candidate that once held citizenship with another country. 

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.”

Click for Full Text!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 8.

#2. To: bluegrass (#0)

This is astounding and so far no mainstream media outlet has reported on it.

Because he was born in the U.S. and is a U.S. citizen even if because of his father's citizenship he could claim Kenyan citizenship. In other words, it is a non-issue except for those who have nothing better to do except whine.

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2008-11-28   8:31:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Because he was born in the U.S.

Says you and his other sycophants.

1. A COLB is not a birth certificate. It is a short form printout alleging what is in a DATABASE. A Birth Certificate in long form exists as a 'vault copy' that contains the DOCTORS NAMES, HOSPITAL OF BIRTH, LOCATION OF BIRTH AND BABY FOOTPRINT.... assuming born in Hawaii.

2. Hawaiian law DID and STILL DOES allow for the registration of a birth up to a YEAR later, even if the birth took place other than Hawaii, as long as a person signs a document saying they are claiming Hawaiian residency.

Now the Supreme Court may not call De Kingfish out on this but the fact remains that what he has shown so far is NOT proof of American citizenship. And since you are so smart why not tell us why someone would spend in the neighborhood of 800,000 dollars defending against a suit to show a ten dollar birth certificate (assuming he has one that would prove him to be eligible to be President)? Seems to me that only a dumbass using other people's money would do something like that.

James Deffenbach  posted on  2008-11-28   8:49:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

hy someone would spend in the neighborhood of 800,000 dollars defending against a suit to show a ten dollar birth certificate (assuming he has one that would prove him to be eligible to be President)?

Here is why. I already posted why.

freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/re...rtNum=91336&Disp=211#C211

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2008-11-28   8:54:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

With all due respect, I read that and it is bovine fertilizer. No sane person spends upwards of a million dollars to hide a birth certificate.

James Deffenbach  posted on  2008-11-28   9:01:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

With all due respect, I read that and it is bovine fertilizer. No sane person spends upwards of a million dollars to hide a birth certificate.

You're trying to reason with a Loon. His mother ship from planet 'CutNPaste' doesn't even want him back.

OliviaFNewton  posted on  2008-11-28   9:22:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Your right... I have not fallen into the our government and politicians always do what is in the best interest of the people nor have I become complacent like many of you.

Over the years, I have had the privilege of meeting and having discussions with people who came to America from countries known for their adherence to totalitarianism: China, Russia, and former east European satellites of the Soviet Union. When we discussed how the state managed to control public opinion under totalitarianism, these people would usually produce a weary, knowledgeable, cynical smile and point out that propaganda in those countries was really done quite incompetently. If you really want to know propaganda, they said, you need to study American propaganda technique. According to them, it is, undeniably, the best in the world.

"How can that be?" I asked, honestly puzzled.

Propaganda in those countries was too obvious, they told me. As soon as you read the first sentence you knew it was a bunch of propaganda, so you didn’t even bother to read it. If you heard a speech, you knew in the first few words that it was propaganda, and you tuned it out.

"But," I then queried, "How do you know when it’s just propaganda?"

The expatriates explained that bad propaganda uses obvious terminology that anyone can see through. Anyone hearing the phrase "capitalist running dogs", knows he’s listening to incompetent propaganda and tunes it out. Lousy propaganda, these knowledgeable but jaded individuals would tell me, appeals to an abstract theory, to a rational thesis that can be disproved. Even though communists had total control of the press, the people just tuned it out (except for those who were the most mentally defective). Most people, they assured me, just went about their lives as best they could, paid lip service to the state, and just tried to keep out of the way of the secret police. But hardly anyone really believed the stuff. The result, after many decades of suffering, was the eventual collapse of the old order once The Great Leader expired, whether his name was Brezhnev, Mao, or Tito.

American propaganda, however, is much cleverer. American propaganda, they patiently explained, relies entirely on emotional appeals. It doesn’t depend on a rational theory that can be disproved: it appeals to things no one can object to.

American propaganda had its birth, so far as I can tell, in the advertising industry. The pioneers of advertising—a truly loathsome bunch—learned early on that people would respond to purely emotional appeals. Abstract theory and logical argument do nothing to spur sales. However, appeals to sexiness, to pride of ownership, to fear of falling behind the neighbors are the stock in trade of advertising executives. A man walking down the street with beautiful women hanging on his arms is not a logical argument, but it sure sells after-shave. A woman in a business suit with a briefcase, strolling along with swaying hips, assuring us she can "bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, but never let you forget you’re a man" really sells the perfume.

Let’s take a moment and analyze the particular emotions that this execrable ad appealed to. If you guessed fear, you win the prize. Women often have a fear of inadequacy, particularly in this confused age when they are expected to raise brilliant kids, run a successful business, and be unfailingly sexy, all the time. That silly goal—foisted upon us by feminists and popular culture—is impossible to reach. But maybe there’s hope if you buy the right perfume! Arguments from intimidation and appeals to fear are powerful propaganda tools.

American advertising and propaganda has been refined over the years into a malevolent science, based on the assumption that most people react, not to ideas, but to naked emotion. When I worked at an ad agency many years ago, I learned that the successful agencies know how to appeal to emotions: the stronger and baser, the better. The seven deadly sins, ad agency wags often say, are the key to selling products. Fear, envy, greed, hatred, and lust: these are the basic tools for good propaganda and effective advertising. By far, the most powerful motivating emotion—the top, most-sought-after copy writers will tell you, in an unguarded moment—is fear, followed closely by greed.

Good propaganda appeals to neither logic nor morality. Morality and ethics are the death of sales. This is why communist propaganda actually hastened the collapse of communism: the creatures running the Commie Empire thought they should appeal to morality by calling for people to engage in sacrifice for the greater good. They gave endless, droning speeches about the inevitably of communist triumph, based on the Hegelian dialectic. Not only were they wrong: their approach to selling their (virtually unsellable) theory was not clever enough. American propagandists (we can be jingoistically proud to say) would have been able to maintain the absurd social experiment called communism a little longer. They would have scrapped all the theory and focused on appealing images. Though the Commies tried to do this through huge, flag-waving rallies, the disparity between their alleged ideals and the reality they created was just too great.

One tyrant who did take American propaganda to heart was Adolph Hitler. Hitler learned to admire American propaganda through a young American expatriate who described to him, in glowing detail, how Americans enjoyed the atmosphere at football games. This American expatriate, with the memorable name of Ernst "Putzi" Hanfstängl, told the Führer how Americans could be whipped up into a frenzy through blaring music, group cheers, and chants against the enemy. Hitler, genius of evil as he was, immediately saw the value in this form of propaganda and incorporated it into his own rise to power. Prior to Hitler, German political rhetoric was dry, intellectual, and uninspiring. Hitler learned the value of spectacle in whipping up the emotions; the famed Nuremberg rallies were really little more than glorified football halftime shows. Rejecting boring, intellectual rhetoric, Hitler learned to appeal to deeply emotional but meaningless phrases, like the appeal to "blood and soil." The German people bought it wholesale. Hitler also called for blind loyalty to the "Fatherland," which eerily echoes our own new cabinet level post of "Homeland" Security.

If you study Nazi propaganda, you will be struck by how well it appeals to gut-level emotions and images—but not thought. You will see pictures of elderly German women hugging fresh-faced young babies, with captions about the bright future the Führer has brought to German. In fact, German propaganda borrowed the American technique of relying, not so much on words, but on images alone: pictures of handsome German soldiers, sturdy peasants in native costume, and the like. Take a look at any American car commercial featuring rugged farmers tossing bales of hay into the backs of their pickups, and you’ve seen the source from which the Nazis borrowed their propaganda techniques.

The Germans have a well-deserved reputation for producing a lot of really smart people, but this did not prevent them from being completely vulnerable to American-style propaganda. Amazingly, a nation raised on the greatest classical music, the profoundest scientists, the greatest poets, actually fell for propaganda that led them into a hopeless, two-front war against most of the world. Being smart is, in itself, no defense against skilled American propaganda, unless you know and understand the techniques, so you can resist them.

American politicians learned, early in the twentieth century, that using emotional sales techniques won elections. Furthermore, they learned that emotional appeals got them what they wanted as they advanced towards their long-term goal of becoming Masters of the Universe. From this, we get our modern lexicon of political speech, carefully crafted to appeal to powerful emotions, with either no appeal to reason, or (better yet) a vague appeal to something that sounds foggily reasonable, but is so obscure that no one will bother to dissect it.

Franklin Roosevelt understood this, which is why he called for Social Security. Security is an emotional appeal: no one is against security, are they? Roosevelt backed up his campaign with a masterful appeal to emotions: images of happy, elderly grandparents smiling while hugging their grandchildren, with everything in the world going right because of Social Security. All kinds of government programs were sold on the basis of appealing images and phrases. Roosevelt even appealed to America’s traditional love of freedom, spinning that term by multiplying it into the new Four Freedoms, including Freedom from Want and Freedom from Fear. Well, what heartless human being could possibly be against that? The Four Freedoms were promoted with images of parents tucking their children cozily into bed, and a happy family gathered around a Thanksgiving dinner, obviously free from want. The campaign was also based on that most powerful of all selling emotions: fear. If you don’t support Social Security, the ads suggested, you will live your last years in utter destitution.

Putzi Hanfstängl, viewing Roosevelt’s evil brilliance from Nazi Germany, was probably jealous.

American advertising executives learned the value of presenting a single image or slogan, and repeating it over and over again until it became ingrained in the public’s consciousness. Thus we are all aware that Ivory Soap is so pure that it floats: a point that has been repeated for the better part of a century. I’m not sure why I should be impressed that a bar of soap floats, but on the other hand, it’s not intended that I think that far. Politicians now sell their programs the way the advertising creeps sell soap: they dream up a slogan and repeat it over and over again. Thus we get empty slogans like The New Frontier, The New World Order (that one was poorly chosen; it sounds too much like an actual idea), or Reinventing Government (an idea that everyone should favor, except that the idea behind it really means Keeping Government the Same, only no one is supposed to think that far). Empty grandeur sells political products.

Both German and American politicians carried the use of banners to new heights. Flags are impressive emotional symbols, particularly when waved by thousands of enthusiastic people: it’s a rare individual who can resist the collective enthusiasm of thousands of his fellow human beings, cheering about their collective greatness. Putzi Hanfstängl understood this, advising Hitler to fill his public spectacles with not just a few, but countless thousands of swastika flags. The swastika, too, was a brilliant stroke of advertising and propaganda: it has become, in the public consciousness, the official emblem of Nazism, even though it had nothing to do with Germany. In fact, swastikas were used by ancient Hindus and American tribes, but I’m not aware of it being used by anyone in Germany prior to Hitler.

Now observe how Americans in the current crisis have taken to displaying huge flags on their cars. Flags are not rational arguments; they are instruments for whipping up the Madness of Crowds. Observe how many Americans have, with a straight face, called for a constitutional amendment to outlaw flag desecration, oblivious to the obvious contradictions such an amendment would have with the rest of the Constitution. But again, if you learn nothing else about propaganda, learn that it must not appeal to rationality.

Politicians don’t just use warm, fuzzy images to sell us on the road to tyranny. They also need emotional appeals to intimidate their enemies. Thus the small percentage of the population that really does use thought and reason more than emotion must be demonized. Roosevelt managed this with some masterful propaganda strokes. Those who opposed him were Isolationists, and Malefactors of Great Wealth! (The gut-level emotion appealed to here is envy.) Roosevelt thus showed himself to be an early master of what former California Governor Jerry Brown called "buzz words"; that is, words intended to silence counter-argument by appealing to unassailable emotional images. No one is for Isolation, and almost everyone reacts to an appeal to hate anyone who has a lot of money. The latter appeal, of course, had great power during the Great Depression, which Roosevelt managed to maintain for the entire length of his presidency, all the while blaming others for its evils. Was this guy an evil genius, or what?

The propaganda cleverness used in successfully branding anti-war people as Isolationists is breathtaking. After all, a rational person (ah, keep in mind, that’s not a common individual) realizes that those who oppose war are the exact opposite of isolationists. The Old Right at the time called for peaceful, commercial relations with all nations, based on neutrality in foreign affairs. If anything, those who oppose war and meddling in other countries’ affairs are the opposite of Isolationists as they really stand for open, profitable relationships with other countries. The people who stand for such ideas do not "sell" them by means of strictly emotional appeals, so they tend to lose the propaganda wars. When Roosevelt succeeded in whipping the country up into a war-frenzy after steering us into the Pearl Harbor fiasco, the Old Right realized their opposition to the war was hopeless.

The role of the government propaganda camps known as public schools cannot be discounted in all this. Schools are not so much centers of learning as they are behavior conditioning camps in which children are taught to be unquestioningly obedient to authority. Since reason and morality are the death of propaganda, schools busy themselves with systematically stunting students’ ability to reason and think in moral terms. Because the government owns the propaganda camps, it’s not surprising that the beneficiary of the propaganda is almost always the government. Americans accept obvious absurdities because they were drilled into their heads, year after year, in the government propaganda camps until they became true and unquestionable. Thus, everyone knows Roosevelt got us out of the Great Depression, even though the worst depression years were precisely those in which he and his party controlled every branch of government. Everyone knows Lincoln was a great president because he saved "government by the people" and freed the slaves, even though he became a war tyrant and only freed the slaves when it was politically convenient to do so. Wilson, everyone knows, made the world "safe for democracy", evidently by instituting a draft and getting America involved in a European war that was fought for reasons no one to this day can fathom. When minds are young and pliable—government experts understand this principle—you can fill them with nonsense that is practically impossible to root out. Laughable falsehoods in effect become true because everyone knows them to be true.

Advertising executives learned, early on, that companies could not be too obvious in using their propaganda. If their agenda could be clearly seen, then it could also be rejected. The answer to this problem was the American propaganda technique of the "independent expert" and the "guy on the street." One of these appeals to our timidity before authority, and the other to our smugness when dealing with someone at or below our perceived social level. Of course, these two techniques are really just two sides of the same coin. In product advertising, sports heroes and celebrities are used to sell corn flakes because no one would listen to the president of Kellogg telling us why corn flakes are so good. In selling detergent, plain-looking housewives are preferable to sexy models because they look just like us. In political propaganda, "experts" are often trotted out to tell us, in convoluted, circular reasoning, why minimum wage laws are really good for us, why a little bit of inflation is good, or why we just can’t rely on the free market for something so crucially important as education. Or, using the "guy on the street" approach, we are told to support idiotic wars because the common soldiers ("our boys"), cannot function unless they know we stand united behind them. If the rare sensible person tries to argue against war, he is accused of making things harder for "our boys."

This brings us to the latest iteration of masterful American Propaganda: the War on Terrorism. Any attempt to explain why the terrorists (crazed as they obviously were) felt motivated to attack the World Trade Center is looked on as "siding with the terrorists." Indeed, Ashcroft and Bush have said, in so many words, that if you don’t support them in everything they do, you stand with the terrorists. Ashcroft and Bush have evidently studied their propaganda lessons from World War II, when Roosevelt silenced all opposition by accusing anyone who stood against him of undermining the war effort. Anyone who suggests we should not risk World War III by invading the Middle East is alternately accused of siding with the terrorists, of slandering the memory of those who died, or (of course) of not "standing by our boys" in times of great need. It’s easy to feel alienated in a nation of flag-wavers singing patriotic hymns. The fact that they are marching lockstep to a world in which the government will monitor their e-mail, snoop into their bank accounts, and eventually throw them in jail for voicing opposition doesn’t seem to bother them one bit.

Now, most libertarians or otherwise thoughtful people will react with dismay when told that most of their fellow human beings react so unthinkingly to sock-you-in-the-gut emotional propaganda. Unfortunately, most people are not capable of really thinking things out. Most people really do buy perfume because of the emotional imagery. Most people really do believe the "independent expert", whether in politics or buying a car. Most people want to go with the crowd, or follow the leader. To do otherwise requires independent thought and the willingness to be ostracized, which is an unbearable psychological burden for many.

If you want to take heart, remember that the Vietnam War ended because a few people just continued to speak against it, despite the overwhelming government propaganda for it. The fact that a lot of the anti-war protesters were motivated by the wrong reasons (support of commies), doesn’t matter in light of the fact they were able to turn the tide. They were right, even if for the wrong reasons. If advocates of freedom continue to speak against the creeping tyranny that our masters justify on the phony grounds of the War on Terrorism, we might just be able to prevent the transition from Republic to Empire. The thing about propaganda is that, once it is exposed for what it is, no one listens anymore. People tune it out, just as the slaves in Russia and China learned to tune out their official propaganda.

www.purewatergazette.net/propagandainamerica.htm

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2008-11-28   9:32:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#11. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#8)

Your right... I have not fallen into the our government and politicians always do what is in the best interest of the people nor have I become complacent like many of you.

i don't think there is one person on 4um who believes politicians always do what is in the best interest of the people. in fact quite the opposite. the only ones you could assume may feel that way, at least to the degree they are believing that HE is somehow different and a savior of sorts, are the obama voters.

how is it that you can accuse anyone here of being complacent? you don't know who we are. you don't know what we do in real life. you don't know the amount of activism or personal fights with the beast that many of us are involved in. don't you think that's presumptuous on your part?

christine  posted on  2008-11-28 10:20:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]