Barney Frank: GOP Thinks $2 Billion F-22 Project Is Funded By Monopoly Money
Barney Frank: GOP Thinks $2 Billion F-22 Project Is Funded By Monopoly Money
Last week, over the objections of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the Obama administration, the House Armed Services Committee restored funding for the basically useless F-22 fighter jet, in the process stripping funding for nuclear waste cleanup efforts. Last night, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) filed an amendment to restore the waste cleanup funds and eliminate the money for the F-22. The move came after months of Republicans issuing dire warnings about the consequences of suspending the F-22 program: Frank Gaffney, for example, declared it would lead to “diminished military capability, emboldening enemies, and alienating our friends.”
On a press call hosted by the Center for American Progress Action Fund this afternoon, Frank pointed out Republicans’ hypocrisy in railing against the deficit while simultaneously funding a $2 billion air force jet that has never once flown a mission in Afghanistan or Iraq. Frank said so-called deficit hawks act as though the Pentagon is funded with “Monopoly money”:
I am of course struck that so many of my colleagues who are so worried about the deficit apparently think the Pentagon is funded with Monopoly money that somehow doesn’t count.
Frank also dismissed concerns that eliminating the F-22 will cost jobs:
These arguments will come from the very people who denied that the economic recovery plan created any jobs. We have a very odd economic philosophy in Washington: It’s called weaponized Keynesianism. It is the view that the government does not create jobs when it funds the building of bridges or important research or retrains workers, but when it builds airplanes that are never going to be used in combat, that is of course economic salvation.
Listen to it:
Indeed, conservatives declare that canceling the F-22 would result in thousands of lost jobs. However, as Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Lawrence Korb pointed out on the call, the administration has also ramped up production of the F-35, which is produced at many of the same facilities — and by the same workers — as the F-22.
Frank called the F-22 fight an important “test” for the Obama administration’s efforts to cut wasteful military spending. “If we cannot hold the line on this, then it’s very bad news for trying to hold down any kind of excesses in military spending,” he said.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Hey, barney!!!!!!! How ya doing! Glad to see you on the FP of TP!
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:01 pmAll right folks let’s start that list of people that have told Another Joe to give it a rest, shall we?
Let’s see I’ll start….
1) dbadass
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:05 pmBut Ice Man and Maverick need those F-22s to defend America from Blue Laser!
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:07 pmClicked on the link in the blog and I really have to wonder why we need the F-22 Raptor. Seems like a major boondoggle to me. I hope Rep. Frank holds the line on this one. The F-35 and F/A-18 seem to fill the needs we have well. And for less money.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:08 pmin the process stripping funding for nuclear waste cleanup efforts.
while calling for MORE nuclear power plants…
in-f’n-credible…..
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:09 pmwhy are YOU trying to hijack this thread???
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:15 pmThe F-22 is an impressive plane. So is the F-35.
But, funding for the production of both should halt immediately.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:17 pmTell a Republiklan that military spending is the true socialism and watch their heads implode.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:27 pmkaty:
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:29 pmI am trying to hijack nothing. I am simply shutting down a persistent problem. It takes sometime. Feel free to post around that which interests you not.
best-
Why is it that all measures, policies, criticisms, or news pieces conservatives don’t like end up -invariably- “emboldening” the enemy?
As a rhetorical device, this “emboldening the enemy” babble saw better days a long, long time ago.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:32 pmMethinks the Defense Department and their cronies need to do bake sales, car washes, raffles, etc. to do their fundraising. This crap has gone on far too long.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:36 pmAnd since when the party of them Freedom Fries is oh so worried about “alienating our allies”? How will the elimination of a wasteful government program achieve this, exactly?
Nobody on the Republican side of the aisle seemed to care about alienating any allies during the Bush years. They used to call it “leadership” back then.
Republicans: The party of the empty slogans & rhetorical devices.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:39 pmdbigbadass, i call bullshit.
quit all your strutting and have a real conversation.
what you’re good at…
thanks for the personal reply.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:41 pmAs far as air-superiority fighters go the F-22 is indeed impressive but the idea that it is the ‘future’ of air combat is false.
Ignoring for the moment the incredible cost savings, future UAV’s will have one more huge advantage over F-22’s in air combat: no pilot.
That means they are not limited to 9 g’s like the F-22. They can turn more sharply, be built much smaller (stealthier and harder to hit/spot) and are far less costly than F-22’s.
UAV’s are the future of air-superiority.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:42 pmUpdated list:
1) dbadass
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:46 pm2)tony and lido
3)Reggie
4) ralph
5) angels81
6) joe cantwell
7) Shadowboxer
8) pastcaring
9) shayne
10)gummitch
Updated list:
1) dbadass
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:47 pm2)tony and lido
3)Reggie
4) ralph
5) angels81
6) joe cantwell
7) Shadowboxer
8) pastcaring
9) shayne
10)gummitch
11) StratRat
Updated list:
1) dbadass
2)tony and lido
3)Reggie
4) ralph
5) angels81
6) joe cantwell
7) Shadowboxer
8) pastcaring
9) shayne
10)gummitch
11) StratRat
12)vinylspear
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:49 pmkaty
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:49 pmI prefer that but this situation demands some attention. If you think I am wrong check out the thread below.I hope you trust my honor but I really am just stepping out for work
Updated list:
1) dbadass
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:50 pm2)tony and lido
3)Reggie
4) ralph
5) angels81
6) joe cantwell
7) Shadowboxer
8) pastcaring
9) shayne
10)gummitch
11) StratRat
12)vinylspear
13) toasterhead
14) RUC
nice job folks! I’m out…
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:51 pmFreeMarketLiberal Says:
Is this the same Monopoly money that will fund over 1 TRILLION dollars in health care reform? What funded the Americorps? By the time this administration is done spending this Monopoly money, inflation will make us all broke. Hail Jimmy Carter of 2009
Health care reform and Americorps are valuable. Unneeded fighters are not. Could we make it any more simple for you?
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:52 pmIs that the I-don’t-give-a-damn-what-Another-Joe-says list?
Can I get on it too, please?
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:52 pmUpdated list:
1) dbadass
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:55 pm2)tony and lido
3)Reggie
4) ralph
5) angels81
6) joe cantwell
7) Shadowboxer
8) pastcaring
9) shayne
10)gummitch
11) StratRat
12)vinylspear
13) toasterhead
14) RUC
15) Shayne
Updated list:
1) dbadass
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:56 pm2)tony and lido
3)Reggie
4) ralph
5) angels81
6) joe cantwell
7) Shadowboxer
8) pastcaring
9) shayne
10)gummitch
11) StratRat
12)vinylspear
13) toasterhead
14) RUC
15) Shayne
15) Gregor Samsa
Oops
Updated list:
1) dbadass
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:56 pm2)tony and lido
3)Reggie
4) ralph
5) angels81
6) joe cantwell
7) Shadowboxer
8) pastcaring
9) shayne
10)gummitch
11) StratRat
12)vinylspear
13) toasterhead
14) RUC
15) Shayne
16) Gregor Samsa
If Another Jackass was a progressive he’d be unhappy that he was creating busy work for other progressives. But he’s just another RNC troll.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:57 pmA train ran off the tracks because of no maintenance. But instead of spending tax dollars on infrastructure let’s build another jet we don’t need.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:58 pmConservatives always believe that. The winger brain is hard-wired. No matter what happens, they will go to their graves believing exactly what they believe now. This is Winger Psychology 101.
One belief hard-wired into the right-wing brain is the conviction that Democrats are the party of big government, when in fact the government grows much more under Republicans.
Even after Bush II, Repubs are freaking out about Obama expanding the government, apparently unaware they should shut the F up. It’s as if Bush II didn’t happen.
Another belief on the Repub hard drive is that they can manage the economy better than Democrats. This is now a good one-liner. But you’ll notice they’re busily giving Obama advice on what to do, with no more sense of shame than a child that has soiled itself.
The scary part is, Obama will probably do everything they suggest. But never mind…
Another good one: the press is liberal. We all know the right believes this, years after most liberals have abandoned the media in disgust and despair. If it were biased for us, you’d think we’d know.
But oddly, only people with their panties in a wad about liberals know.
Also wired onto that tiny winger motherboard is the conviction that Democrats and liberals “embolden the enemy.” It’s not really a ploy. It’s a belief completely invincible to change. Note that it always involves reading the mind of “the enemy”–just one of the special powers of conservatives, covered later in this class.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:59 pmOh no:
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:59 pm1) dbadass
2)tony and lido
3)Reggie
4) ralph
5) angels81
6) joe cantwell
7) Shadowboxer
8) pastcaring
9) shayne
10)gummitch
11) StratRat
12)vinylspear
13) toasterhead
14) RUC
15) Gregor Samsa
FreeMarketLiberal Says: Being paid to volunteer? Did I miss the definition of volunteer? Or did the progressive Jonestown club CHANGE that too.
Hmm… pretty sure you’d consider the military valuable. Aren’t they all ‘volunteers?’
And- returning to the thread of this conversation…
Do you think the F-22 is valuable enough to spend $350 million a plane on?
Americorp is asking for a combined appropriation of $420 million last I heard… so we’d only have to cut TWO of your boondoggle F-22’s to more than pay for it…
Or did conservatives CHANGE the definition of ‘teh Math’ too?
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:01 pmUpdated list:
1) dbadass
2)tony and lido
3)Reggie
4) ralph
5) angels81
6) joe cantwell
7) Shadowboxer
8) pastcaring
9) shayne
10)gummitch
11) StratRat
12)vinylspear
13) toasterhead
14) RUC
15) Shayne
16) Gregor Samsa
17) Pachydiplax de St. Augustine
And may I add that I’m come to the conclusion that our trolls can best be described as Excess Baggage on Spaceship Earth.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:03 pmThanks, Shayne! ;-)
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:05 pmRe: #36- military volunteers are all paid for their volunteer service is what I meant…
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:05 pmI’m conflicted on this one.
The F-22 has one purpose, air to air combat with the most advanced aircraft of our enemies. Since it’s been in service we haven’t faced an air war and, therefore, the F-22 hasn’t been used. Nor should it. It’s very similar to the F-106 Delta Dart in that respect.
The F-106 was designed, in the late 1950’s, to be the beast interceptor in the world. It’s purpose was to defend against a Soviet air attack on our country. Since that attack never occurred, the F-106 never flew a combat mission in more than 20 years of service. One could make a case that it served as a deterrent to such attacks and was a good investment.
We have already invested, hugely, in the F-22. Since those costs have been “sunk” I think it’s reasonable to spend lesser funds to keep it updated and in service in the hopes that it’s never used. It’s a continuation of a long-standing U.S. policy to spend dollars instead of lives.
As for the F-35? It’s not yet in service and will never have the air to air capability and performance of the F-22. It’s a next generation multi-role aircraft that we will need to replace the current generation, mostly F-16s and F/A-18s, that are behind the latest Russian and Chinese war planes and are reaching the end of their airframe lives. It’s a Hell of a plane, on paper, but it’s not a replacement for the F-22.
The F/A-18 E/F “Super Hornet” isn’t in the same class as either one. It’s slower, has a lower ceiling, has a shorter range, is less “stealthy” and many have argued that it’s adoption for so many roles has limited it’s abilities in any one.
I happen to believe that there is a value in deterrence. One way to accomplish that is by maintaining a technological advantage over potential enemies. I also think that when we put warriors in harms way we should spare no expense in protecting them. I hope we never face another air war but I have no illusions about how dangerous the World can be. If we ever send pilots out against modern aircraft? I want them in F-22s until such time as the next generation, manned or not, is a reality.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:07 pmFriends like Charles M. Kupperman, who is on the board of directors of Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy. He is also vice president of Space and Strategic Missiles Sector at Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin makes the F22…
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:10 pmOh! Just to be clear. If the continuation of the F-22 program is designed to produce a few more airframes? It’s probably a bad deal. If the investment is in order to keep the existing inventory in tip-top shape? I am for it.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:13 pmpete-
While I appreciate what you are saying the fact is that we can bridge the gap more cheaply with F-15’s and F-18’s… (that’s why the Air Force is resistant to upgrading too many f-15’s with the newest electronic suites- they perform too closely to the F-22 when they are) and we DO have a huge technological advantage… the worry now is not that we will be out-performed by one or two superior airframes but rather overwhelmed by many inferior ones…
That’s why investing in UAV’s and strengthening our electronic countermeasures capability and AWACS production makes way more sense to me.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:17 pmIf the investment is in order to keep the existing inventory in tip-top shape? I am for it.
I agree with this whole-heartedly.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:18 pmThe countries we fought air war against in the last 30 years had no effective air power to know of.
We fought air wars against Panama 1989,Iraq in 1991,Afghanstan in 2001, and Iraq again in 2003.
Before that we invaded the little island of Grenada…and had an air raid over Libya in 1986.
This F-22 plane is a very expensive one per unit to buy and maintain.
If we have war with Russia, or China,the two big super powers, it will not be decided or even won by a jetfighter.!!
Gaffney never been in military and he has no idea what he is talking about.
This Rolls Royce of airpower has yet to prove that it is worth the money.
The F-18,and F-35 will do the same with a fraction of the cost.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:22 pmIf we have war with Russia, or China,the two big super powers, it will not be decided or even won by a jetfighter.!!
Exactly.
If we do go ‘toe to toe with the Ruskies’ I reckon it’s gonna be Nuclear Combat… and what we’ll really need to worry about is that ‘mine shaft gap…’
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:24 pmSeriously, when’s the last time America needed superiority in air to air combat ? The last time I can think of would be Viet Nam.
This is truely a plane without a mission.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:26 pmbelaccifer lacca
The problem with updating F-15s is that around half of the fleet is past their airframe life and can’t be fixed. The F-18 is lacking in performance and, as we found out to our horror in Viet Nam, it’s dangerous to place too much faith in electronics and missile systems. And UAVs are still, mostly, theoretical.
I may be biased. My Dad was a navigator in B-17s and flew 10 combat missions before he was wounded. And I grew up among Naval Aviators. I have tremendous appreciation for combat pilots and think that they should have some input in what they fly.
And there is little dissent among the World’s combat pilots that electronics are not a viable substitute for performance. Missiles aside, the plane that can outperform it’s adversary wins.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:35 pmJeff Bovine Says:
F-22s are perfect for hunting pirates on the high seas and going door to door in urban settings to find the terrorists.
you’re pretty good with the parody…lol
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:41 pmAnd there is little dissent among the World’s combat pilots that electronics are not a viable substitute for performance. Missiles aside, the plane that can outperform it’s adversary wins.
Agreed- but again, the limiting factor in performance has become the pilot.
UAV’s are not restricted to 9g’s… nor is the pilot of a UAV at risk.
The F-22’s we have should be flown… but we should stop building more of them and turn towards the real future of combat aircraft- which is smaller, cheaper and unmanned.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:45 pmMathazar Says:
Seriously, when’s the last time America needed superiority in air to air combat ? The last time I can think of would be Viet Nam.
Don’t forget the first Gulf War. Our casualties would have been much higher without total air superiority. However, the planes we faced were not first line. They were de-rated budget models.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:48 pmSpeaking of the first Gulf War… look at the hero of that conflict.
The plane that every Air Force commander wanted more of?
It wasn’t the F-15 or F-18 or even the high tech F-117… it was the lowly, slowly A-10. The plane that the Air Force and it’s pilots had hated…
Why?
Because it was so survivable and effective… you never know what the most effective combat plane will be in a given conflict… but I think we have enough F-22’s.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:54 pmYou’ll get no argument from me, belaccifer lacca. UAVs are finally getting to the point where they can fill the role of manned aircraft. And, since I’ve flown Radio Control models practically since they were invented, I just think they’re cool!
But, even then, it’s likely that some manned combat aircraft will always have a niche.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:56 pmbelaccifer lacca
The A-10 is really something else. And, I fear, that we are making a mistake trying to fill their role with F-35s. It strikes me as similar to using a Ferrari as a garbage truck.
June 23rd, 2009 at 7:00 pmWe also agree there, pete.
June 23rd, 2009 at 7:03 pmWe need another plane with the high survivability that triple-redundancy and armor provide to fill the close-support role… that’s one role where I fully support manned airframes for the foreseeable future as friendly fire is already such a problem…
The F-22 is a marvelous airplane. But it is an airplane looking for a reason to exist. That reason seems to be the government contracts that provide the money to build it. I can think of lots of things for people to build, and the F-22 isn’t anywhere near the top of the list. Hell, it’s not even on page one.
June 23rd, 2009 at 7:06 pmtarazan,
As I see it, we haven’t planned on going toe to toe with Russia or China in quite some time. We do, however, need to plan on fighting their latest equipment in the hopes that it’s never a necessity.
One of the things that pushed the F-22 was the breakup of the Soviet block. Getting a close look at the Russian equipment of the East Germans was a real wake up call. We found out that our latest planes, including the F-15, faced some serious disadvantages. Since that time everyone in “The West” has made huge investments in next generation weapons.
Don’t get me wrong. I think we can and should cut military spending. I think we should demand more from our allies and move towards more commonality. But, we can’t ignore the treats we might face.
N. Korea, Pakistan, and Iran are just three potential enemies that we know have modern weapons systems. And we can’t predict what kind of lunatics might come into possession of advanced weapons.
June 23rd, 2009 at 7:14 pmbelaccifer lacca
There’s an old saying that’s widely attributed to Chuck Yeager.
“There’s no substitute for a Mark 1 eyeball“.
The facts of air warfare, until further notice, make a pilot on the scene a necessity. For one thing, a pilots sences can’t be jammed. And, for another, pilots are better at making decisions than any computer. “Friendly fire” and “collateral damage” are the two best reasons for manned aircraft.
Again, I think that there is a value, hard to define in dollars, to providing the best and most expensive weapons to our military personnel. And the sad fact is that we need to replace assets that have been wasted in pursuit of Bushco’s follies.
Heck! If you think the F-22 is causing a flap, wait until the bills come due on the next generation of transports/tankers. We are sending young men to war in aircraft that are older than their parents.
June 23rd, 2009 at 7:25 pmPachydiplax de St. Augustine Says:
——————————————————————————–
Updated list:
1) dbadass
2)tony and lido
3)Reggie
4) ralph
5) angels81
6) joe cantwell
7) Shadowboxer
8) pastcaring
9) shayne
10)gummitch
11) StratRat
12)vinylspear
13) toasterhead
14) RUC
15) Shayne
16) Gregor Samsa
17) Pachydiplax de St. Augustine
18) hormiga brava chavez
I’m late – it’s been busy on the ant farm! I’m you all. Chill AJ!
Way to go Barney Frank! Finally a Democratic Senator with some cojones! Expose those GOPers and DINOs for their hypocrisy!
June 23rd, 2009 at 7:27 pmIf we were to get in a war with Russia or China, that somehow didn’t end up going nuclear, our risk-aversion would kill us quicker than our lack of F-22s. In a real war, you had better be prepared to die. It would be no quarter. Action taken to save a few lives would be totally wasted.
June 23rd, 2009 at 7:39 pmI’m sorry…but it is hard to take seriously any fag that has a prostitution ring…running out of his congressional office. Only in the DemocRATic party…would someone like this…not be shamed into hiding his queer face from public eye.
As far as the money goes. At least it would go for something that America might be able to actually use…unlike B.O.’s all DemocRATic Pork Bill he signed into law…after breaking another promise!
June 23rd, 2009 at 7:42 pmhormiga brava chavez Says:
Way to go Barney Frank! Finally a Democratic Senator with some cojones!
Is that what you call them? I thought they were a Liberal tea bag?
June 23rd, 2009 at 7:43 pmYou’re getting a little picky here. Do you KNOW for sure that he is a citizen? It’s almost guaranteed; but no one really knows ANYTHING for sure.
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:02 pmIf there’s any “diminished military capacity,” it is the beleaguered troops who have been in the Middle East longer than soldiers fought World War II. I hear they are pulling out of Iraqi cities, but they need to come home and rest. The GOP had no hesitation in shipping these folks overseas, keeping the dead troops under wraps when they returned and hasn’t said word one about bringing home the troops who are still there and weary of war. But then, the GOP does think “empathy” is a dirty word.
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:06 pmSorry so late to the party.
Updated list:
1) dbadass
2)tony and lido
3)Reggie
4) ralph
5) angels81
6) joe cantwell
7) Shadowboxer
8) pastcaring
9) shayne
10)gummitch
11) StratRat
12)vinylspear
13) toasterhead
14) RUC
15) Shayne
16) Gregor Samsa
17) Pachydiplax de St. Augustine
18) hormiga brava chavez
p.s.-What hormiga said!
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:15 pmIf I remember correctly one F-22 fighter can take out five F-18 fighters, and we have made 100 of them. If we are supposed to be the most militarily advanced nation then we do not need more than 100 fighters. Aside from the fact that this fighter has not seen combat, to which I ask why should we build more if not one has fired a missile at our enemies?
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:00 pmI ***STILL*** don’t get it.
The military doesn’t want the F-22. They say it doesn’t fit the needs of the war of the future. The plane hasn’t been tested in combat or even a close simulation – so the claims of superiority are the hopes of the manufacturers. It costs a fortune relative to resources which the military DOES want (and can’t be obtained cause the money is paying for the F-22).
So why are we still ordering more ?
June 24th, 2009 at 12:17 amUseless against third world countries we are invading and occupying, who have no air force to speak of, sure.
But if war breaks out in North Korea, you won’t be calling it useless.
I know our pilots won’t be.
June 24th, 2009 at 12:33 amWell I can see why you don’t get it because your information is absolutely incorrect. The F22 Fighter has been tested extensively in simulated combat and has been proven itself superior on all counts.
In fact the F22s were able to defeat superior forces as much as 10 times their own numbers.
From Wiki:
The F22 have also intercepted Russian bombers.
And it has been declared “fully operational” by the Air Combat Command.
There’s a lot of misinformation being spread out there like your comment, or this article which calls it’s “worthless”, which is just incorrect.
The F-22 is not that useful in our current engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we are busy occupying smaller, backwards countries who have no functioning air force.
But should war break out with a developed nation with a modern, intact air force, such as North Korea, then the F-22 will mean air superiority and will save countless US Pilots lives.
When you can send a handful of F-22’s up against 200 enemy fighters and not lose a single fighter, then it’s a no brainer.
June 24th, 2009 at 12:55 amThe democratic party has a chance of wining long term approval in the eyes of the American citizenry, but Barney Frank sure as hell isn’t helping the cause. Dodd ain’t much better.
June 24th, 2009 at 10:49 amWaitasecond. How can we blame this all on the GOP? Don’t we have the majority in the House and Senate? Why are we knuckling under?
For sure we can’t shift all the blame for this bungle.
June 24th, 2009 at 10:16 pmThank you..
Sesli Chat
June 26th, 2009 at 5:10 amSesli Sohbet
Sesli Chat
Sesli Sohbet
Sesli kent
SesliChat
SesliSohbet
I guess we are going to wait around for North Korea to get a missile capable of hitting the United States, make threats to attack us, do the dirty deed, then we will go the U.N. and ask for permission to respond. I live in the Los Angeles area. I pray that North Korea doesn’t throw a nuclear tipped missile at us. All I can do is pray. It is obvious our government is not going to do anything to stop it from happening prior to the fact.
June 27th, 2009 at 11:24 pm