Right Wing Nut House

Marvin is in the House!

WHY EVERYTHING GOOD THAT HAPPENS IN THE WORLD IS AN ACCIDENT AND EVERYTHING BAD THAT HAPPENS IS GEORGE BUSH’S FAULT (By Marvin Moonbat)

Watching what’s going on in the middle east is kind of puzzling. Here you have all these people in the streets demonstrating for…what? I mean, it’s not like things are going to change. After all, it’s the middle east fer crissakes. Listening to the wingnuts in this country you’d think some kind of revolution was under way or something.

So what happens if these people get to vote? Big deal! We get to vote all the time in this country and nothing changes; the repugnuts keep winning. Haliburton is still in business. And nobody’s been arrested for rigging the Ohio election last November. Show me the Chairman of Deibold Corporation in shackles and handcuffs doing the perp walk and then I’ll believe that things are gonna change.

All this brings me to the urban myth being spread by the republifascists that George Bush is responsible for all these supposedly good things happening in Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places where these goofy Arabs are smiling and crying and raising a ruckus about “freedom.” This is ridiculous. George Bush is just lucky. The fact that there are 150,000 American troops in the middle east right now helping Iraq start some sort of “democracy” and the Bushitler made some grandiose statements about “freedom” and “liberty” at his innaugural has nothing to do with what’s going on over there. It’s pure coincidence.

Same thing happened to that doddering old wingnut Reagan. First he calls the commies an “evil empire.” Then he tells Gorby to “tear down this wall” and the next thing you know the freepers are saying the senile old coot had something to do with ending the cold war. This is nuts. First of all, there was no reason to tear down the Berlin wall. It was a perfectly good wall, less than 30 years old. It could have stood another 50 years or so. And it would have except those crazy Germans got it into their heads that they could throw off the fraternal bonds of friendship with the Soviets just so they could buy blue jeans and eat some decent food.

I mean, it’s not like they were starving to death. They had it pretty good as far as I can see. Free health care, cheap food and housing, and plenty of uplifting socialist rhetoric to feed the soul. And what did they trade that in for? A little comfort? A little more Freedom? MTV?

Well, I might have a started a revolution for MTV…but the rest?

And now we”re hearing the same thing about this freedom stuff in the middle east happening because Bushitler is lucky enough to be sitting on his butt in the White House smirking away while people are in the streets demonstrating for freedom. When are you wingnuts going to get it into your heads that our Chimp in Chief doesn’t have a clue? Everything bad that happens in the world is going on right now because of shrub’s policies. Look at all those people we’re killing in Iraq? Yeah, a lot of them are terrorists but who set America up as the judge, jury, and executioner? We should arrest those people and give them a fair trial. Better that than killing them for God’s sake!

Well, gotta go. Chloe wants to study for our “American Imperialsm and Capitalism Exploitation” mid-term. Since I haven’t cracked open the text book yet, I better get started.

Marvin Moonbat appears every Friday courtesy of “Moveonalready.org”

Cross-Posted at Blogger News Network

If this comes to pass, it could prove to be extremely troubling:

Bradley Smith says that the freewheeling days of political blogging and online punditry are over.
In just a few months, he warns, bloggers and news organizations could risk the wrath of the federal government if they improperly link to a campaign’s Web site. Even forwarding a political candidate’s press release to a mailing list, depending on the details, could be punished by fines.

Smith is a Federal Elections Committee member. His interview at C-Net News.Com should be a wakeup call to all of us who blog on politics in the United States.

Here’s the deal. In 2002 the FEC exempted the internet from McCain-Feingold, the campaign finance reform bill, by a 4-2 vote. Then, last fall a District Court overturned that decision saying “The commission’s exclusion of Internet communications from the coordinated communications regulation severely undermines” the intent of McCain-Feingold.

Smith and the other two Republican commissioners wanted to appeal the Internet-related sections. But because they couldn’t get the three Democrats to go along with them, what Smith describes as a “bizarre” regulatory process now is under way.

What kind of regulations?

A link to a candidates website could be considered a political contribution. That’s right. The Federal Election Commission is trying to determine the best way to quantify the monetary value of a link for purposes of determining how much of a contribution should be charged against a blogger’s $2000 personal campaign contribution limit.

Can you say nightmare?

It may become illegal to link back to a candidate’s web site unless it’s counted as a campaign contribution.

What happens if, like I did on numerous occassions, you link back to the other guy’s site to point out some inconsistency or, as in the case of John Kerry, some hilarious bit of nonsense?

So far, our government is silent on whether or not it will be illegal to try and make people laugh.

Other regulations involving email lists and non-blog news sites are also in the offing. In effect, if you have a mailing list of people who get an update from your blog, the cost of maintaining that list and sending the emails could be counted as campaign contributions if you’re promoting a candidate by linking to his website or even quote from a press release!

This is the madness spawned by McCain-Feingold. It’s what happens when the government attempts to regulate something that’s protected by the Constitution. In order to comply with the Constitution, all sorts of incredibly stupid and illogical rules have to be promulgated which leave open loopholes you can drive a semi through.

What are the chances of these regulations coming to pass? Pretty good if you believe Commissioner Smith. Other’s aren’t so sure. From Rexblog:

If the columnist or anyone at CNET or anyone who is going to be screaming about this today can produce one member of Congress who will go on record supporting any such measure, I will head to the streets along with anyone else who wants to protest this “coming crackdown.”

And Professor Bainbridge gives us this gem:

Yet, the oddity of campaign finance regulation is that we have ended up in a place in which pornographers apparently have greater constitutional protection than political bloggers. It’s like we live in the First Amendment’s Bizzaro World.

Yup.

This is only the beginning of Internet regulation. We all know that politicians have been greedily eyeing on-line commerce for its potential to yield billions of dollars in tax revenue. And somebody, somewhere, sometime, is going to start attacking the massive internet porn industry.

Why should we bloggers be any different?

Cross-posted at Blogger News Network

UPDATE

Michelle Malkin has a good round-up of reaction.

Reader Gary wonders if this could backfire:

Or it might be wedge that begins the reverse some of the ridiculous campaign finance laws. The internet is too dynamic to regulate this way.

Spot on.

UPDATE II

From the comments, there seems to be some skepticism as to whether or not this could ever happen.

From Len: This is all just ridiculous grandstanding. Does anybody really think that the U.S. government is capable of regulating or controlling the internet in any way?

And from Jeremy: This is no more likely to happen than a general internet tax, or an e-mail tax to subsidize USPS. It won’t be happening any time soon.

I agree the chances of any kind of substantive regulation is remote but only because of the kind of pressure you’re seeing from bloggers.

I wonder what would happen if nobody said anything?

Via Instapundit:

The elder Assad’s untimely death put Bashar in command, but not in control, of Syria. His dad’s cronies control most of the bureaucracy, armed forces and security organizations. There is no agreement among all these chiefs about what to do to stay in power. Thus we have the bizarre contrast of Syrian police turning over Saddam’s half-brother and 30 of his henchmen, while Syrian agents facilitate the assassination of a prominent anti-Syrian Lebanese politician, and a suicide bombing inside Israel. All within two weeks. No senior Syrians will admit that no one is completely in control in Syria. It is feared that there may be a coup, as some of the senior generals and security officials push Bashar Assad aside and take over. Bashar is seen by his father’s old timers as too inexperienced. But the problem is that Syria is simply in a very bad situation. Like Iraq, Syria adopted the Baath Party to run the country decades ago. Like Iraq, the socialist dictatorship of the Baath Party led to corruption and economic decline. This has made enemies of Syria’s neighbors, and the Syrian people. The Syrian Baath Party has run out of credit, and credibility. The bill is now due, and no one wants to pay.

Assad’s father Hafez al Assad was a classic “strongman” controlling the army and intelligence service with an iron fist while using an efficient and deadly secret police to stifle dissent and maintain control of the populace. His Soviet allies sold him modern weaponry while backing him diplomatically in his quest to use Lebanon as both a buffer state against Israel and a foward staging area to precipitate attacks on the Jewish homeland.

Hafez Assad was a player in the sometimes deadly game of middle east politics because he could stay one or two steps ahead of his adversaries in Beirut as well as Washington and Tel Aviv. He was sure handed in his dealings with other Arab states, especially his fellow Ba’athists in Iraq. And he was a survivor, realizing after the first Persian Gulf War that, in order to maintain his position, he would have to at least give the appearance of talking to Israel.

His son Bashar succeeded to the Presidency upon Hafez’s death in 2000. Bashar, an ophthalmologist by training, came to politics late. His older brother Basil, groomed by his father to succeed him, died in a car crash in 1994. Bashar, then, was thrust into the role of putative successor. After 6 years in the military, Bashar was “elected” by the Syrian parliment to the presidency.

Bashar has been caught flat footed by the reaction to what apparently was the Syrian assassination of Rafik Hariri, former Lebanese Prime Minister. First the US and EU and now even the Arab League and Russia are calling on Syrian troops to vacate Lebanon.

What makes this so dangerous for Bashar is that Syria is economically dependent on Lebanon. Nearly 10% of Syrians are employed in Lebanon as guest workers. Couple that with the illicit drug trade that brings much needed hard currency (plus influence bought by Bashar in the army) and you have something of an explosive situation for the Syrian President. In order to stay in power, he’s going to need to keep the army happy. But if Syria is forced to leave Lebanon, not only will this be a humiliating setback for the army, but Bashar will lose the Bekaa valley, the growing and distribution center for the hashish and opium Bashar uses to reward his favorites in the army and secret police. And the fate of Syria’s guest workers could precipitate a full-blown economic crisis that would cripple the country’s ability to support the terrorist networks of Hamas and Hezbollah, both headquartered in Damascus.

It remains to be seen whether Bashar has the experience and the ruthlessness to survive once his troops pull out of Lebanon. If the above excerpt on Syrian politics is accurate-if Bashar in fact has only nominal control of the army and the party-the withdrawal of Syrian troops could mean a death warrant.

Dictators don’t usually retire and get million dollar book contracts.

Cross-posted at Blogger News Network

UPDATE

The Saudi’s just joined the chorus for a Syrian pullout from Lebanon. This is bad news for Assad because Sauid Arabia has been one of Syria’s most reliable allies in the past.

Captain Ed is thinking along the same lines that I am above:

Their [the Saudi's] blunt demand to retreat from Syria only piles the pressure on Damascus, and if enough of it builds up, Assad may have to flee for his life as Syrian power brokers rethink their support for his regime.

Assad may not last the weekend if this keeps up.

Who says our colleges and Universities exist under some kind of stifling political correctness?

After some students were offended by Jada Pinkett Smith’s comments at Saturday’s Cultural Rhythms show, the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance (BGLTSA) and the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations have begun working together to increase sensitivity toward issues of sexuality at Harvard.

Students said that some of Pinkett Smith’s remarks concerning appropriate gender roles were specific to heterosexual relationships.

Jada, Jada, Jada…you should know better by now. How incredibly rude and insenitive of you! To make remarks “specific to hetrosexual relationships” even if you are one just isn’t done on college campuses today; especially, of all places, Harvard!

BGLTSA Co-Chair Jordan B. Woods ‘06 said that, while many BGLTSA members thought Pinkett Smith’s speech was “motivational,” some were insulted because they thought she narrowly defined the roles of men and women in relationships.

“Some of the content was extremely heteronormative, and made BGLTSA members feel uncomfortable,” he said.

The fact that this appears in the Harvard Crimson and not the Harvard Lampoon is probably an accident. How else can you explain the laughable way these poor schmucks twist themselves into knots trying to make an issue of of…what? Hetronormalcy? Is that a word? I can’t find it in my “Culturally Sensitive and Anti-Homophobic Guide to Surviving in a Politically Correct Environment” manual.

Calling the comments heteronormative, according to Woods, means they implied that standard sexual relationships are only between males and females.

“Our position is that the comments weren’t homophobic, but the content was specific to male-female relationships,” Woods said.

Margaret C. D. Barusch ‘06, the other BGLTSA co-chair, said the comments might have seemed insensitive in effect, if not in intent.

“I think the comments had a very strong focus for an extended period of time on how to effectively be in a relationship-a heterosexual relationship,” Barusch said. “I don’t think she meant to be offensive but I just don’t think she was that thoughtful.”

Poor Jada probably used the wrong code words one too many times. Plus, she didn’t use a stopwatch and time just how long she should have been talking about non”hetronormative” issues. I can’t imagine someone as nice as Jada Pinkett-Smith wishing to offend anyone much less a group known as the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations who had just given her the “Performer of the Year” award. So next time, I’m sure she’ll abide by the “equal time” provision in the political correctness handbook…that’s exactly equal time.

God! I’m glad I’m not in college today.

Senator Robert (”some of my best friends are negroes” ) Byrd peeked out from underneath his hood yesterday on the Senate floor and, with the courtly manners worthy of the old fashioned Southern gentleman that he is, proceeded to compare the Republican party with the Nazi’s:

Many times in our history we have taken up arms to protect a minority against the tyrannical majority in other lands. We, unlike Nazi Germany or Mussolini’s Italy, have never stopped being a nation of laws, not of men.

But witness how men with motives and a majority can manipulate law to cruel and unjust ends. Historian Alan Bullock writes that Hitler’s dictatorship rested on the constitutional foundation of a single law, the Enabling Law. Hitler needed a two-thirds vote to pass that law, and he cajoled his opposition in the Reichstag to support it. Bullock writes that “Hitler was prepared to promise anything to get his bill through, with the appearances of legality preserved intact.” And he succeeded.

Hitler’s originality lay in his realization that effective revolutions, in modern conditions, are carried out with, and not against, the power of the State: the correct order of events was first to secure access to that power and then begin his revolution. Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality; he recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal.

And that is what the nuclear option seeks to do to Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

(HT: Wizbang)

Senator Kleagle is recognized as something of an historian when it comes to the arcane details of the Senate. In fact, he conducts a monthly seminar on the history of that august body. Funny…he never gets around to lecturing on his own excerable role in filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1965 or his opposition to the nomination of the first African-American Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. But then, the doddering old fool can barely stay awake long enough to listen to the Senate’s opening prayer and drink his metamucil much less hold forth on his own colorful career as an apologist for the Klan and civil rights obstructionist.

The Capn’ does a better job giving the old coot a history lesson on Nazi Germany than I could:

By the time the Enabling Law came up for a vote, the SA (Brownshirts) had effectively terrorized the Reichstag into giving Hitler everything he wanted. Hitler did not come to power through purely democratic means, nor did he care all that much about the sheen of legality. His SA by that time numbered into the millions, and they had already blazed a trail of violent chaos, attacking all of their political opponents, assassinating a number of them; that’s how the Nazis came to power. So when Byrd speaks about how the Nazis used legal means to secure their dictatorship, rest assured that the Senator takes that completely out of the context in which it occurred.

I might add that, in order to assure passage of this “Enabling Law” which suspended the Weimer Constitution and gave Hitler broad, dictatorial powers, Der Fuehrer simply arrested a number of socialist and communist deputies and kept them away from the Reichstag when the vote came up. In addition, Hitler’s leader in the Reichstag, Hermann Goerring, placed dozens of SA Brownshirts throughout the floor initimidating the rest of the deputies into voting for the Act.

Perhaps Senator Cross Burner should get his head out of his wrinkled, sagging posterior long enough to read something besides garbage like this:

It is time to acknowledge our democratic system of government has been replaced by fascism.

Strong? You bet. But true, saith I. Laurence W. Britt, in an article entitled “Fascism Anyone?” published in the Spring 2003 issue of Free Inquiry magazine, identifies what he says are 14 “basic characteristics” of fascism. Britt writes that he “consider[ed] the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia,” and says further, “To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power.”

(HT: Museum of Left Wing Lunacy)

The only problem with this “analysis” as well as Senator Sheets rant is that they never bother to define what fascism is! So hysterical are they in their opposition to the President and the Republican party, they believe that simply by saying “Nazi” long enough and loud enough, it will come true and people will believe them. They haven’t the foggiest notion of what fascism is except that it’s “bad.” And that’s hardly enough to justify tarring your political opponents with such an incendiary label.

Thankfully, the American people just seem to shake their heads in wonder at this exercise in overheated rhetoric. I would also guess that 62 million people don’t like being compared to Hitler on a daily basis.

I wonder if that’s going to come back and haunt the Democrats when election time rolls around?

Looks like Baby Assad has seen the writing on the wall; or does he feel a kick in the pants?

Syria expects to withdraw its troops from Lebanon in a few months, President Bashar al-Assad said in an interview published on Tuesday.

“It (withdrawal) should be very soon and maybe in the next few months. Not after that. I can’t give you a technical answer. The point is the next few months,” he told Time magazine.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. This is NOT the result of anything George Bush has done or advocated. Don’t believe me? Just ask this guy:

But it literally never crossed my mind that Bush’s fans would credit him with for this positive event, as though his pro-democracy speeches exercise some sort of rhetorical enchantment.

This is the kind of thinking, of course, that has convinced God knows how many people that Ronald Reagan personally won the Cold War. It’s the old post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) logical fallacy.

Ahem…talk about “logical fallacies”…When a President (Reagan) announces to the world less than 6 months into his first term that the Soviet Union is an “evil empire” and will eventually fall as a result of its own internal contradictions and then less than 10 years later it does fall as a result of its internal contradictions (and a healthy push from aforementioned Gipper along with Thatcher, Pope John Paul, and a host of others), is this a “logical fallacy” or a “logical outcome” as a result of policies announced and pursued?

Duh.

Freedom is once again on the march because America wills it. Whenever America has put its mind to promoting freedom and individual liberty around the world, the results have been breathtaking to behold. The idea that it was an accident that democracy broke out in central America when Reagan promoted it by supporting the government of El Salvador, funding the contras, and liberating Grenada is delusional. It says a lot about the myopia of the left that every time they’ve been proven wrong by events, the reason has been an accident of history or blind luck. It’s never that their worldview is hopelessly and irrevocably flawed.

Certainly there are other forces at work in Lebanon, not the least of which is a resurgent nationalism made long dormant by the oppressive occupation of Syrian troops. But if you listen to the old Druze warlord Walid Jumblatt, you get the distinct feeling that George Bush just may have had something to do with Lebanon’s current march towards freedom:

“It’s strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq,” explains Jumblatt. “I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world.” Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. “The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it.”

Of course, after democracy is established in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Iran, and perhaps even Saudi Arabia, what will we hear from the moonbats? “Our” strategy worked!

Jyah! As if! Moonbats live by the old adage…if you can’t beat ‘em, lie like hell.

Who is Jack Bauer?

Is he the nice, sweet guy who always says “please” and “thank you” to co-workers, plays loving boyfriend to nice girl Audrey, and will do anything for a teamate (”I’m gonna need a hacksaw!”)?

Or is he the ultimate “ugly American” whose “get it done at all costs” attitude puts him just slight step above the terrorist trash he so relentlessly pursues?

He is, of course, both…and more. Jack’s complexities can be better explained by looking at American mythical figures like Daniel Boone and Davey Crockett the great hunter/heroes of the early 19th century, as well as other, later heroes created by Hollywood.

Both Boone and Crockett were popular, charismatic men whose charm and good humor masked an almost unfathomable violence that lurked just below the surface. Boone especially proved to be as single-minded as Jack as he pursued his goal of hacking a settlement out of the Kentucky wilderness. Crockett’s well known hard headedness led to both problems in his personal life as well as his ultimate defeat for re-election to Congress in 1836. Both men mirror Jack’s patriotic devotion as well as a willingness to do what ever it takes to succeed.

The myth of the hunter/hero gave way to the lone hero motif popularized by Hollywood. This hero, usually played by a small town sherriff (Gary Cooper in “High Noon”) or the gunfighter with a heart of gold (Alan Ladd in “Shane”), used violence to defeat greater violence. This concept was turned on its head in the 1960’s and 1970’s as the great “anti-heroes” of Clint Eastwood blurred the distinction between good and evil. Dirty Harry got the job done (as did the “Man with No-Name”) but at what cost?

Enter Jack Bauer who’s not quite the Clint anti-hero but not the pure, small town Gary Cooperish protaganist either. He is, in fact, the perfect hero in a post-9/11 world. Torn as America is between getting the job done at all costs while upholding American ideals, Jack simply can’t help himself. He necessarily sees the world in stark relief, a black and white universe populated by some really nasty thugs who don’t even blink at the idea of murdering hundreds of thousands of people. Like Audrey, we recoil at some of Jack’s tactics. But even Audrey recognizes that Jack is the guy doing what needs to be done to keep us safe.

SUMMARY

Jack: Paul, you need to start talking to me now.
Paul: I’ve got nothing to say to you!

BZZZZZZZZZZZZ! Wrong answer!

Try, “Give me makeshift CTU torture devices for $400, Alex”…

Jack, whose one punch knockout of Paul at the end of last week’s episode would have made Oscar de la Hoya green with envy, sets out to determine whether or not Paul is involved with the terrorists. His method for discovering the truth-the gruesome torture of Paul in front of his maybe-not-so-soon-to-be-ex-wife Audrey is puzzling. Was Jack deliberately setting himself up to be hurt when good girl Audrey sees Jack inflicting pain (with some satisfaction) on Paul and starts to have second thoughts about their relationship? After all, he could have insisted that Audrey leave the room. Instead, by allowing Audrey to stay and see Jack’s dark side, he must have known that she would have blanched at his methods. We’ll see.

Thanks to Paul, Jack finds the first link in the chain that leads to Marwan, the leader of the Araz family cell. We learn from Dina (who supplies the next link courtesy of Tony’s exquisitely handled interrogation) that there are other cells who also report to Marwan. And Curtis, who easily escapes the clutches of Baldy and his American turncoats, supplies the final bit of information that allows CTU to close in on the override device.

Cornering Marwan in what appears to be just your typical American IT Department (pretty damn chilling, that) Curtis and Jack secure the override device while Marawan attempts his escape. Enter fat geek Edgar who proceeds to override the override and just in the nick of time save the day…for the moment anyway. We’ve got 13 hours to go folks.

Meanwhile, after more than 4 hours we finally learn the fate of Erin’s daughter Maya. Turns out she’s causing a lot of problems in the CTU infirmary due to her bi-polar disorder, leading to Erin’s frequent absences from the CTU floor.

My respect for Erin has grown tremendously over the past couple of episodes. Tonight, of course, she generated a lot of sympathy even prior to Maya’s suicide. Looking back, I think she handled the enormous pressures of both the job and being a single mother with about as much dignity and grace that someone in that position could. Maya’s suicide at what could only be described as the high point of her professional career was especially poignant.

One hint at what’s coming:

Marwan: The important thing is that one of them (nuke plants) has already melted down.

Despite stopping all the rest of the power plants from melting down, the plant that did meltdown is either a cover for something worse (hard to imagine what) or a signal for something else to begin.

Stay tuned.

BODY COUNT

Curtis takes out two American tunrcoats. Marwan accounts for two CTU agents. CTU takes out Marwan’s main contact at the IT office. We also learned the fate of the back-up CTU agents captured with Curtis last week. This brings us to the century mark for the show.

Jack: 18 dead.
Show: 100 dead.

What happened to Baldy?

LOOSE ENDS

Loyal reader Maryhunter points out that we have more clothing continuity problems. You’ll recall Secretary Heller’s magical change of clothing after escaping from the terrorists. Now Paul has an equally miraculous shirt change from the time he’s brutalized by Jack to the point where he, Jack, and Audrey are driving to the office building to get the override.

Do all rich people carry around spare clothing like this? What am I missing here? This from an email from Maryhunter:

“… that discontinuity of Paul’s shirt suddenly going from stripes to purplish isn’t horribly offensive, because the Jackmeister ripped his old shirt’s buttons all off pre-zappage. (sometime I want someone, perhaps Jack, to rip my shirt off like that…an old one, though…)”

Settle down girl!

Cross-posted at Blogger News Network