After an incredible June, Mover Mike hit 2,000,000 page views. I have been blogging since 2004 and it is nice to see that more people are finding this blog. Sometimes, I have considered quitting, thinking why bother, no one reads me. However, conservative fiscally, Libertarian socially, this blog joins many others who don’t like the path the U.S. is on.
No longer can we discuss things rationally and heatedly. Now it seems the play book says to ignore the message, savage the messenger. We are seeing that currently with Trump and we read that Hillary hasn’t answered the press questions in two weeks. AND…more and more people are considering leaving the country.
Mexico”sends” their unemployed to the U.S.. How long will 93,000,000 unemployed and under employed wait to move south? How long will the drought stricken in the south west wait to move? What happens when the U.S. becomes like Greece and can’t feed the 43,000,000 on EBT?
Stay tuned, dear reader. I hope to cover it and provide some answers. Thanks for reading Mover Mike
From Daniel Greenfield writing at To The Point News: Obama can not defeat ISIS with soft power, though ISIS could beat him with soft power assuming its Caliph ever decided to agree to sit down at a table with John Kerry without beheading him.
Iran has picked up billions in sanctions relief and the right to take over Yemen and raid ships in international waters in the Persian Gulf just for agreeing to listen to Kerry talk for an hour. And that might be a fair exchange.
As bad as having your capital or ship seized by Iran is, listening to John Kerry talk is even worse.
If ISIS were to agree to a deal, it could pick up Baghdad and Damascus just in exchange for showing up. All it would have to do is find a Jihadi who hasn’t chopped off any heads on camera to present as a moderate. The administration and its media operatives would accuse anyone who disagreed of aiding the ISIS hardliners at the expense of the ISIS moderates who also represent the hardliners.
If Obama did that, he would at least lose in a way that he understands — instead of in a way he doesn’t.
So far ISIS has preferred the classical approach of killing everything in its path. The approach, deemed insufficiently nuanced by masters of subtlety like Obama and Kerry, has worked surprisingly well. Their response, which is big on the Bush arsenal of drone strikes, Special Forces raids and selective air strikes, hasn’t. But Bush was fighting terrorist groups, not unrecognized states capable of taking on armies.
It’s hard to destroy something if you don’t know what it is. And it’s hard to know what a thing is if you won’t even call it by its name or name its ideology.
The left loves root causes, but the root cause of ISIS isn’t poverty, unemployment or a lack of democracy.
The Islamic State isn’t unnatural. Its strength comes from being an organic part of the region, the religion and its culture. Its Arab enemies have performed so poorly fighting it because their institutions, their governments and their armies are unstable imitations of Western entities.
The United States can’t make the Iraqi army work because Iraq isn’t America. The assumptions about meritocracy, loyalty to comrades and initiative that make our military work are foreign in Iraq and Afghanistan where the fundamental unit is not the nation, but the tribe, clan and group.
Iraq and Syria aren’t countries; they’re collections of quarreling tribes that were forced into an arrangement that included the forms of Western government without any of the substance. When the Europeans left, kingdoms quickly became military juntas. Now the juntas are fighting for survival against Islamic insurgencies that are striving to return the region to what it was in the days of Mohammed.
ISIS is the ultimate decolonization effort. It’s what the left claims that it wants. But real decolonization means stripping away everything the Europeans brought, including constitutions, labor unions and elections. The cities that ISIS controls have been truly decolonized. There is no music, there are no rights, slavery is back and every decision is made by a cleric with a militia or a militia leader with a cleric.
That’s Mohammed. It’s the Koran. It’s 7th century Islam.
ISIS, or something very much like it, was always waiting to reemerge out of the chaos. 100 years before ISIS, there were the Wahhabi armies of the Ikhwan which did most of the same things as ISIS. The British bombed them to pieces in the 1920s and the remainder became the Saudi Arabian National Guard.
The insistence on democratic institutions weakened the military juntas holding back Islamist insurgencies. Islamists took power across the region. Where they couldn’t win elections, they went to war. But whether they won on the battlefield or the ballot box, violence and instability followed them.
The fundamental mistake of the Arab Spring was the failure to understand that Islamist democracy is still a road leading to the Caliphate. Turkey’s Erdogan, the Islamist whose rule was used to prove that Islamist democracy can work, now openly promotes the reestablishment of the Ottoman Empire.
Or as Mullah Krekar of Ansar Al-Islam put it, “The resistance is not only a reaction to the American invasion; it is part of the continuous Islamic struggle since the collapse of the Caliphate. All Islamic struggles since then are part of one organized efforts to bring back the Caliphate.”
A decade later, the Jihadist leader has proven to be more accurate than his Western hosts in Norway.
ISIS is not a reaction. It’s the underlying pathology in the Moslem world. Everything planted on top of that, from democracy to dictatorships, from smartphones to soft drinks, suppresses the disease. But the disease is always there. The left insists that Western colonialism is the problem. But the true regional alternative to Western colonialism is slavery, genocide and the tyranny of Jihadist bandit armies.
Our policy for fighting ISIS is colonialism by another name. We are trying to reform Iraqi institutions in line with our values and build a viable Iraqi military along the lines of our own military. Yes, the West is the solution — but institutional Westernization that never goes beyond a few government offices and military officers won’t work.
Neither will the attempt to artificially inject a few big ideas such as democracy into an undemocratic tribal culture. The only alternative to depending on military juntas is transforming the people.
The West won a culture war with the USSR. It is capable of winning one with Saudi Arabia. It has even unintentionally won a culture war with Iran. (Which is why most Iranians love America and hate their mullah government. See Hope for Iran, November 2014-JW)
ISIS is not just a military force. It is a cultural one. Much of its success has come from its cultural appeal.
As long as the Middle East is defined in terms of Islam, some variation of the Islamic State or the Moslem Brotherhood bent on recreating the Caliphate will continue reemerging. We can accept that and give up, but the growing number of Moslem migrants and settlers mean that it will emerge in our country as well.
We have a choice between Islamization and de-Islamization.
After defeating Saddam, we pursued the de-Baathization of Iraq. If we are going to intervene in the Moslem world, it should not be to reward one Islamist group, whether it’s Iran or the Moslem Brotherhood, at the expense of another. Instead we must carve out secular spaces by making it clear that our support is conditional on civil rights for Christians, non-believers and other non-Moslems.
Our most potent weapon isn’t drones or fighter jets, it’s our culture. We disrupt Islamists with our culture even when we aren’t trying. Imagine what we could accomplish if we really tried.
But first we must abandon the idea that we need to take sides in Islamic civil wars. Any intervention we undertake should be conditioned on a reciprocal degree of de-Islamization from those governments that we are protecting.
Instead of pursuing democracy, we should strengthen non-Islamic and counter-Islamic forces in the Moslem world.
We can’t beat ISIS with Islam and we can’t fight for freedom while endorsing constitutions that make Sharia law into the law of the land in places like Iraq and Libya.
We don’t only need to defeat ISIS militarily. We must defeat the culture that makes ISIS inevitable.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
Terrorists assaulted a “Mohammed cartoon” event in Texas sponsored by activist Pamela Geller, and the response has been, in part, soul-searching over what’s wrong with Pamela Geller.
Geller is an attention-hungry provocateur who will never be mistaken for Bernard Lewis, the venerable scholar of Islam. Her Texas gathering to award a cash prize for the best cartoon of Mohammed — depictions of whom are considered offensive by many Muslims — was deliberately offensive, but so what?
Two armed Muslim men showed up intending to kill the participants, and were only thwarted when they were shot dead by a police officer who was part of the elaborate security arrangements.
Absent the security, we might have had a Charlie Hebdo–style massacre on these shores, in Garland, Texas, no less, a suburb of Dallas. (The world would be a safer and better place if the forces of civilization everywhere were as well-prepared and well-armed as they are in Texas.)
That horrifying prospect didn’t stop CNN from interrogating Geller the morning after the attack about her views of Islam and her decision to have as the keynote speaker for her event the anti-Islam Dutch politician Geert Wilders (who has to live under 24-hour protection). The implicit assumption was that Geller and her cohorts were as much of a problem as the fanatics who planned to censor them at the barrel of a gun.
Today, criticism of Islam is at the vanguard of the fight for free speech, since it is susceptible to attack and intimidation by jihadists and calls for self-censorship by the politically correct. Geller refers to her meeting as a free-speech event while her critics prefer to call it an anti-Islam event. They are really one and the same. In today’s circumstances, criticism of Islam is at the vanguard of the fight for free speech, since it is susceptible to attack and intimidation by jihadists and calls for self-censorship by the politically correct.
“Yes, but . . . ” defenses of Geller don’t cut it. She had a perfect right to do what she did, and it’s a condemnation of her enemies — and confirmation of her basic point about radical Islam — that the act of drawing and talking elicited a violent response.
If cartoons of Mohammed may seem a low, petty form of speech, they are only the fault line in a deeper clash of civilizations. A swath of the Muslim world doesn’t just want to ban depictions of Mohammed, but any speech critical of Islam.
There was much tsk-tsking after the Charlie Hebdo attack about how France had made itself vulnerable to domestic terrorism because it has failed to assimilate Muslim immigrants. The critique carried a whiff of self-congratulation about how much better the U.S. is as a melting pot, and so it is.
Yet two Phoenix roommates were still prepared to commit mass murder to keep people from drawing images they don’t like. One of them, an American convert to Islam named Elton Simpson, had been convicted of lying to the FBI about discussions about traveling to Somalia, allegedly to engage in terrorism. He evidently took inspiration from ISIS calls to attack the Garland, Texas, event, in another sign that the poisonous ideology of radical Islam knows no borders.
It will ever be thus until all of Islam accepts the premises of a free society, as have other major world religions. The day there can be the Muslim equivalent of the play The Book of Mormon without the writers, actors, and audience members fearing for their lives will be the day that Islam is reformed. Then, and only then, will mockery of Islam by the likes of Pamela Geller and her ilk be a tasteless irrelevance, rather a statement from atop the ramparts of free speech.
Yes, there is such a thing as self-restraint and consideration of the sensibilities of others, but it shouldn’t be the self-restraint of fear. Pamela Geller is a bomb-thrower, but only a metaphorical, not a literal, one. That’s the difference between her and her enemies — and between civilization and barbarism.
— Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He can be reached via e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org. © 2015 King Features Syndicate
HALF-FULL REPORT 05/08/15
Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler
This was the winning entry in the Draw Mohammed Contest in Garland, Texas last weekend. It was drawn by artist Bosch Fawstin, who was raised by a hate-filled “moderate” Moslem family in Brooklyn, and abandoned Islam after reading Ayn Rand. There’s an informative interview of him in Breitbart (5/06).
Fawstin was one of the 300 attendees of the contest that a pair of Moslem retards – let’s abbreviate that to “motards,” like we do with “libtards” for both are morally retarded – were attempting to mass murder and were thankfully gunned down before they could.
Jack Kelly’s appellation for the libtard media is The Lying Swine, and their reaction to the motard terrorism at Garland perfectly shows why. Instead of condemning the terrorists, they hysterically condemned the woman who organized the contest for “provoking” them.
One laughable example is the actual WaPo headline: “Event organizer offers no apology after thwarted attack in Texas.”
You can easily lose count of libtard journalists pompously denouncing Pam Geller’s “provocation” by saying, “I support free speech, but…” Frankly, you expect that from The Lying Swine. What we don’t expect is the same cowardice from conservative talking heads, like Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham, and Greta Van Sustern.
I’ve gotten into arguments with friends who like O’Reilly while I’ve always thought he’s a bullying horse’s ass – but I’ve never thought he was yellow until now. Thank heavens for Megyn Kelly who shut him down Monday night (5/04).
The must-read on this is Karen McQuillan’s Conservative Pundits for Sharia. An excerpt:
To claim that drawing Mohammed is an insult is a jihadi idea. It is not an American idea. It is applying their code to our behavior. Drawing Mohammed is entirely normal political speech. It is not a gratuitous insult; it is fighting the imposition of sharia law in America.
Pam Geller is the bravest woman in America at this moment.
She deserves to be given a podium so her voice can be heard by millions. That supposedly conservative journalists are attacking her instead signals their incapacity to counter jihad in America.
It is crucial for the survival of civilization that all of us speak out loudly and clearly about the many truly appalling and abominable aspects of Islam.
So it should be obvious by now who the HFR Hero of the Week is: Pam Geller. I should tell you that she’s been my friend for years, that we have a mutual admiration – and she’s a huge fan of TTP
The Yiddish dictionary defines mensch as: “An upright, honorable decent person; someone of consequence, someone to admire and emulate; someone of noble character.” Note it is gender-free, applying to persons, not just men but women as well.
Pam Geller is a mensch. She has the cojones Bill O’Reilly pretends he has. She’s the one Jim Geraghty means when he says, “We Have Invented Jihadist Flypaper.” Not we, Jim, Pam has invented jihadi flypaper.
Keep up with her via her blog, pamelageller.com. And keep up your noble work, Pam – for America’s sake and all of ours.
(Ps. to Pam – at TTP, we spell it Moslem and Mohammed like it always used to be, not “Muslim” and “Muhammad” like Islamic Political Correctness demands. Perhaps you might consider doing so too. Then again, perhaps we should go back to the way it was for centuries when Moslems were traditionally called “Mohammedans” – what do you think?)
From To The Point News:
[This is the text of Robert Spencer’s address at the Mohammed Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest in Garland Texas on Sunday, May 3rd, just hours before two Moslem terrorists were gunned down trying to murder the attendees.]
The PEN Writers Association that was founded in order to defend the freedom of expression is giving an award to the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, and 205 of the members of PEN, including some very prominent writers such as Joyce Carol Oates, have pulled out.
Because they say that it is manifesting “cultural arrogance.” They said that the French manifested cultural arrogance in drawing Mohammed and allowing Charlie Hebdo to draw Mohammed.
They don’t seem concerned about the cultural arrogance of the assassins who murdered these cartoonists in the name of a blasphemy law that the cartoonists did not hold.
They don’t care about that imposition of one culture over another; they only care that the French were following their own long tradition of free expression.
Now, that’s a terrible thing for an organization that’s designed to defend the freedom of expression. It’s a terrible dissent. And it bespeaks a dissent in our whole culture in general.
You will see around the room – you probably have already noticed as you were coming in – that we have some of the entries into the cartoon contest blown up and enlarged. And we also have interspersed some historical images of Mohammed.
Now, it’s very noteworthy – take a look as you’re going out this evening – take a look at some of these, because you’ll find them very interesting.
Some of them are ancient Persian images made by Moslems. And nobody got killed. Nobody got death threats. Nobody was called a racist. They depict Mohammed cursing women in hell, they depict Mohammed beheading the Qurayza Jews, of whom he massacred between 600 and 900, according to his earliest biographer. These are depictions by Moslems of Mohammed.
Some of them you’ll see, his face is covered. But in some of them, he’s just depicted as he is in the cartoons that are more contemporary.
Even more important, there are some images you will find from earlier centuries in the West, when we did have more cultural confidence.
Dante Alighieri, the author of “The Divine Comedy” – it’s a three-part allegory, one of the greatest poems in Western civilization, the great Italian poem. And he goes into hell and then into purgatory, and then into heaven.
And in hell, he meets all these people who’ve been damned. One of them is Mohammed. Because Dante was a Christian. And he viewed Mohammed as somebody who had tried to turn people away from the true faith and was thus condemned.
His depiction of Mohammed in hell was made into a fresco which is on the wall of a church in Italy. It’s been there for centuries. Now it’s under armed guard. It was never under armed guard in the 17th century, the 18th century, the 19th century. Only now.
Why is that? Because now Moslems are, in the first place, much more present in the West than they were. And they’re a much more aggressive presence in the West. And that is an aggression fueled in large part by our own cultural weakness.
A very good friend of mine told me right before I left for this event that – you’re just poking them in the eye, you’re trying to provoke them. You know, why are you doing that? You’re the one that’s being offensive. And this was a friend, you know, and I was kind of taken aback. And I had to stop and think – well, what exactly is wrong with that?
What’s wrong with that is that this is only offensive because Moslems have made it offensive. This is only something, as Geert Wilders says, that needs armed guards because Moslems will kill you for drawing Mohammed. It would never be offensive otherwise.
Consider this – the murderers of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists had an accomplice. And as they were murdering the cartoonists, the accomplice went to a kosher supermarket in Paris and murdered four Jews. What have they done? They didn’t draw Mohammed. How did they offend Moslems? They offended Moslems by being Jewish.
Okay, so we have to not draw Mohammed, because that’ll poke them in the eye and offend them. And then we have to not be Jewish, because that will poke them in the eye and offend them. And then what? Okay, I guess pork and alcohol are out. Okay, and then what? Take – humor, yes.
The Islamic State – the Islamic State is beheading people and taking sex slaves, and subjugating the Christians under the hegemony of the Islamic law. And they’re doing it all on the basis of Koranic directives. And so that’s all Islamic. So I guess we can’t say a word about that. Because that would poke them in the eye and offend Moslems.
You see, step by step by step, we’re ending up going in the direction of accepting Islamic law. Let’s put it this way: Every Western media outlet that refuses to publish the Mohammed cartoons is accepting Islamic blasphemy law.
I say it’s time for a little cultural self-assertiveness. In the 19th century, they didn’t have these problems. There’s the famous story that I’ll close with from the British Raj, the British colonization of India.
In India, the Hindus – not the Moslems, but the Hindus – had the practice of suttee, where the widow, the wife of a man who had just died, would be thrown upon his funeral pyre and be burnt to death. And the British outlawed it.
And the Hindu delegation came to General Sir Charles Napier, who was the governor general of the area, and they said to him – you can’t outlaw this, this is our culture. And he said – oh, it’s your culture. Well then, very well. You live out your culture. But we also have a culture. And our culture is that men who force women to throw themselves on fires will be hanged by the neck until dead.
So you live out your culture, and then we’ll live out ours.
In the West, we should be saying exactly that. Yeah, okay, you’re going to kill for people who draw Mohammed? Then we will protect people who draw Mohammed. And we will hunt you down and kill you for trying to kill people for drawing Mohammed.
Freedom of speech is not an end in itself. The freedom of speech was put into the Constitution as our fundamental protection against tyranny. If you want to know who rules over you, then find out who you cannot criticize.
The people who have the clout, the people who have the power – if they are able to silence by the rule of law, by the force of law, those whose opinions they don’t like, then a free society is dead. Then they can do whatever they wish unopposed, and dissent is impossible.
And that’s what this is all about. This is not about insulting Moslems or offending Moslems or poking them in the eye, or even about drawing Mohammed, ultimately.
It’s just that that’s where they’re making the line, and that’s where we’re going to stand. And we’re going to stand against tyranny and for freedom.
Robert Spencer is the founder and director of Jihad Watch.
Here is the Muhammed Cartoon In Texas that caused terrorist attack:
Kudos to the Garland, Texas security forces who took out the would-be terrorists. That story continues to develop as it appears the actions in Garland were known by ISIS leaders abroad prior to the attack. And here then is the cartoon of Muhammad that won that night’s award. Hard to believe there are human beings who are willing to kill over such a drawing, and even more appalling are those in our own American media who have already condemned the freedom of speech organization that hosted the event for “antagonizing” Muslims. MSNBC has been particularly defensive of the terrorists’ attempts to murder people for nothing more than a collection of drawings.
THAT is scary stuff, but then again, we should never forget the current President of the United States was a twenty-year member of a Black Theology church that celebrated the attacks against America on September 11th, 2001. It seems that mindset has become the norm these days in certain media and political circles.
In less than two years, ISIS has gone from a terror start-up overseas to what FBI Director James Comey calls a “chaotic spider web” in the US, with young Muslim men being radicalized in Illinois and the 49 other states. Comey suggests ISIS uses social media like a job fair. That’s how he says terrorists snagged three New York men facing ISIS charges.
Remember Obama called ISIS a JV team compared to Al qaeda: “The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.”
From To the point News and Dr. Jack Wheeler:
Millions of French men and women are proclaiming Je suis Charlie – I am Charlie – as we all know. But saying it is not proving it. That must be done by doing, by concrete action.
Yes, they can agitate and demand their government do what’s necessary – such as:
*Eliminate all Non-Moslem No-Go Zones in France; apply normal police authority to them as anywhere else.
*Eliminate Islamic Sharia Law as having any binding legal authority in France. Any Moslem demanding to live under Sharia Law will be provided with a one-way ticket to the Islamic country of his choice where Sharia prevails.
*Terminate all welfare programs and assistance of any kind to all non-French citizens.
*Allow rifle, shotgun, and handgun ownership and concealed and open carry by anyone over 30 years old who is a natural born Frenchman who can pass a criminal background and shooting test.
*Change any criminal and civil laws that impair self defense and defense of others. Adopt theCastle Doctrine which legalizes killing burglars, robbers, muggers, car thieves, arsonists, and other traditional thugs.
Good luck on their Euroweenie government doing any of this. So let’s focus on what Frenchfolk can do themselves. And how perfect it would be for them to prove they are Charlie through that ultimate expression of their culture – food.
The timing couldn’t be better. There’s an ingredient in French cuisine that no self-respecting French chef would be without, yet strikes horror in the hearts of both Moslems and Moochelle Obama together with her fascist food police. You can’t get better than that. We are talking aboutlard – rendered pig fat. And guess what?
Lard Is The New Health Food. Quite seriously.
That’s according to Food & Wine (the link above – it’s a must-read if only because it’s so entertainingly written). Also according to the British lefties of the London Guardian – Consider Lard – and the US lefties at HuffPo – 10 Reasons You Should Be Cooking with Lard (another must-read for explanatory clarity).
What used to be an insult synonymous with gluttony and cardiac arrest, lard now has gone healthy gourmet. The most health-conscious now demand non-hydrogenated artisanal lard. Google “non-hydrogenated lard” and you’ll get 45,000 hits – among them links to various suppliers.
There’s even a cookbook out now celebrating it: Lard: The Lost Art of Cooking with Your Grandmother’s Secret Ingredient.
Thus it should be an easy sell to persuade restaurants everywhere in France to cook with lard, every bakery to prepare their goods with lard, for every Frenchman and lady to demand their morning croissant baked with lard. Accept no substitutes!
“By any estimation, lard is a healthier fat than butter,” notes the Guardian and gives the facts why. A croissant made with lard instead of butter is amazingly tastier. You’ve never actually eaten real French Fries unless cooked in lard, for that was how they originated before lard’s demonization. This enables every McDonalds in France to brag their pommes frites are now fried in healthy lard rather than industrial oil.
The French proving they are Charlie with lard is a real hat trick: 1) They get to claim they are advocating cooking with lard for health reasons, not to be anti-Islamic (wink, wink, chortle). 2) Any restaurant that cooks with lard guarantees Moslem-free dining for its patrons. 3) What they are eating really does taste more delicious and really is healthier for them.
The true action item, however, is not just persuading restaurants and bakeries to cook with healthy lard but to publicize it – state it prominently on their menus and ads: We prepare our meals/baked goods with pure French lard – it’s the new health food!
In no way imply the motivation is Anti-Moslem, Anti-Halal (“halal” is food adhering to Koranic restrictions). “We just want to eat healthy” is the only motivation – and try hard to say that with a straight face.
Lard – the new health food is a meme that will drive Moslems in France crazy, and many out of France entirely. It is the perfect way for all those millions of French waving their Je suis Charliesigns to prove they really are.
This morning (1/14) in France, all five million copies of the latest issue of Charlie Hebdo featuring a crying Mohammed on the cover sold out quickly. Here’s the cover they could follow that up with:
Note: The word in French is the same — lard. Feel quite free to send this proposal to anyone you may know in France.
Remember alleged deserter Sgt Bowie Bergdahl who Obama exchanged for 5 terrorists housed at Gitmo; who wrote in an email “I am ashamed to be an American. “The horror that is America is disgusting.” Well the final report about his alleged disertion is to be released after the new Congress takes office.
“According to a few reports out today, including sources linked to the Bill O’Reilly show on Fox News, the long delayed Bowie Bergdahl report will finally be released in January and will show that Sgt. Bergdahl abandoned his fellow soldiers in Afghanistan.”
Now get this. Not only is bergdahl a deserter but he will receive $300,000 in back pay and will not have to pay any taxes on that money.
Gritting your teeth yet, reader? A soldier deserts his post, runs to the Taliban where he remains there for five years as a guest/captive. Other American soldiers are killed looking for him. Then the Obama government trades five high ranking Taliban leaders for this one deserter who then is given $300,000 dollars in back pay that he gets to keep – despite it being proven he abandoned his post and will be dishonorably discharged from the military!
Copyright © 2007 Mover Mike. Design by Anthony Baggett.