Skip to main content

View Diary: What I Want to Know: 10 Reasons Why We Shouldn't Be Focusing on Glenn F**king Greenwald (722 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Check my diary history if you like. ;) nt (4+ / 0-)
    •  Why, did you make some sweeping generalization? (0+ / 0-)

      About the motives of others?

      We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

      by i understand on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 02:14:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No. But I thought you were saying you are (14+ / 0-)

        our "checker upper" in that comment up above.

        Please check my Rec history as well. A good report back should help everyone here.

        "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

        by YucatanMan on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 02:25:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  LOL - I see no sweeping generalization (7+ / 0-)

        in my offer to have you check my history.  It isn't hard - you can find at least one diary about the warrantless wiretapping and domestic spying when the Congress passed the FISA bill in 2006.  I was none too happy with Democrats that night.  Felt quite betrayed, actually.

        •  Good I wish the Patriot Act and AUMF were repealed (0+ / 0-)

          But I don't think this issue is much about warrantless wiretapping.

          We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

          by i understand on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 02:36:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I do because we don't have any understanding (6+ / 0-)

            of what the legal rationale is that the court is currently using.  Both Wyden and Udall have said that there is more to this that people should know.  Even Feinstein is squirming now because this court's opinions are so super top secret that people in Congress do not know what's really going on.

            For all we know at the moment what they are doing could easily be illegal or unConstitutional - but because they won't allow anyone to examine the legal rationale they are using - it is simply left to one's imagination.  

            And I think Feinstein is pretty much a dullard on many fronts, but I think that she is smart enough to know that this kind of secrecy breeds conspiracy theories and radicals which is why I think that she is motivated to make some of it public.

            •  Perhaps (0+ / 0-)

              But I'm hard pressed to believe all three branches of Government are colluding to subvert the Constitution just to collect phone records.

              It could happen, but I doubt it.

              We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

              by i understand on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 02:48:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Of course they are colluding, but it isn't (7+ / 0-)

                "just to collect phone records".  They believe that they are keeping us safe - most or many anyway - then there are some people who just LOVE unchecked power and those people are far more prevalent in any given population than most people would like to admit.

                The Framers understood that absolute power corrupts absolutely which is why they drafted the Constitution.  Some of the Framers were unable to resist attempting to claim unchecked powers themselves. It is human nature.  Read Descartes, Locke, Hobbes, Machiavelli's "The Prince".  We aren't any different or any more enlightened than most people were in their eras.  We are all still human full of all of the good and the bad potential that every mortal brings to the table - each and every one of us.

                •  As I said, I don't buy it (0+ / 0-)

                  We can agree to disagree on that of course. But the Supreme Court ruled decades ago that phone records are not protected by the 4th amendment. I'm certain they were not colluding with the Obama Administration (which didn't exist) or anyone in Congress to subvert the Constitution in any way.

                  If there is evidence of domestic wiretapping without a warrant though, I'll be right there with you opposing it.

                  We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

                  by i understand on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 03:00:48 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  One of the conservadem Sanchez sisters (12+ / 0-)

                    comes out and says that there might be a problem and you "don't buy it"?  Wyden and Udall raise red flags and you "don't buy it"?

                    Lot's of people didn't "buy" the stories that the CIA was murdering people systematically in Central and South America either, but it turns out that that was true.  They were exercising unchecked power.  

                    We are talking about the spy agencies here.  If we were talking about HHS or HUD or some other agency, I'd be much more skeptical that corruption was an issue, but even with those agencies there are reasonable scenarios in which corruption could become a big issue.

                    It is more outlandish to think that the spy agencies are not trying to manipulate and hide their activities than it is to believe that they are completely above board.  And in this instance, it is pretty clear that they are operating within a framework that makes it almost impossible for anyone to really do any sort of meaningful oversight, which is a problem because that eventually will end in tears.

                    •  If the issue was more effective oversight (0+ / 0-)

                      Then great, and that is the debate I hear the Administration asking for.

                      But that isn't the debate here. The debate here seems more about shutting it down as somehow unconstitutional. And for sure, that's a principled position to take if you're willing to trade the lives saved by this program.

                      What is the case for lack of oversight though? What is the case of abuse that has no remedy? When Bush was President there was (unfortunately) no shortage of actual cases of abuse, what is the case here?

                      We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

                      by i understand on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 03:21:54 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Trust me - very few if any of the people (7+ / 0-)

                        who are really pissed off about the spying are stoopid enough to think that the data collection, digital spying and overall trolling through American's personal lives is going to ever stop - the technology is there and the government along with just about anyone else with the financial means to buy the servers and equipment and hire the people to do it are not going to stop doing that.

                        The question most certainly is about oversight and also about the American people being reasonably well informed about what their government is doing to them and in their name.

                        Of course, that discussion keeps getting derailed by very arrogant people who do not want the American people and their Representatives to have any say in how they operate.

                        The American people have every right to have a say and every right to be fully and completely informed.

                        What I "don't buy" is the bullshit about this spying being so top secret that the fact that it has been made public has hurt the spies' ability to track terrorists and bad guys.  That's a fucking crock of bullshit.  Those terrorist organizations aren't that stupid.  They know that not only our government, but also many other governments are using all of the digital tech power they can find to try to monitor their activities.  So, why not tell Americans about what they are doing?  It makes no sense.

                        •  Example: It reveals limits not just capability. (0+ / 0-)

                          For example, it reveals what the NSA can't do, not just what they can do.

                          So now terrorists may know what they can do to avoid scrutiny by the NSA.

                          We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

                          by i understand on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 04:26:21 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  It reveals NOTHING of the sort. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            emal, lotlizard, kharma

                            It is well known that if you are a foreign target no matter where you are located - domestically or in a foreign country - you can and will be tracked by this system.  Furthermore, it reveals that there is no safe quarter which ONLY naive Americans would think existed.

                            There are NO LIMITS.  People who have been paying attention know this indisputable truth.

                            People who are trying to do bad shit are even more aware.

                            Shaking head - all you need to do is read a technology blog on any given day and you can connect the dots yourself.

                            People intent on doing harm are going to be off the grid and when and if they are on the grid, they are going to use burner phones in crowded places and talk about laundry and the weather as a means of code communication.  They are NOT going to call or write someone to say, "Meet me at x time with the bomb."

                            Which brings us right back to the most effective tracking which has been done on the ground; with in-person human intelligence; and by literally physically following people around where they are.  

                            One million square feet of computer servers cannot trump the live experience.

                            Just as a for instance, so someone in Utah sees something truly threatening about to go down - like Benghazi - that's a great example actually - and there are no drones or other military close enough to stop what's about to happen - sure they get to watch an atrocity on "TV", but can they do anything about stopping it?  NO is the unequivocal answer.  BUT if they had people on the ground who could track the "bad guys" they would and could have more power to intervene.

                            The government knew who 18 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11/01were.  They let them into the US thinking that they'd use them for intelligence and promptly lost them.  Had they stopped those people from entering the US in the first place that last asshole they didn't know about would never have been able to pull anything off - nothing - he was an untrained idiotic pawn.

                            The older brother involved in Boston was flagged by the Russians as a threat.  A threat that the massive spying apparatus, apparently, could not stop.  WTF is that all about?  He wasn't even a citizen?  Given the very relaxed rules with respect to warrants, surely he would have been easy to track.  As much as anything, I am fucking appalled that their giant tracking operation did not stop that guy and his brother and I really think that you and everyone else should be appalled, too.

                            I was no less offended when Bush was made out to be some sort of hero because he stood on top of the rubble at the World Trade Center even though he IGNORED clear and serious warnings that there was an imminent attack.  The fact that Americans gave him both more power and a second term after that massive failure will always piss me off.

                          •  You should read the documents (0+ / 0-)
                            It is well known that if you are a foreign target no matter where you are located - domestically or in a foreign country - you can and will be tracked by this system.
                            For example, notice you started with if you are a foreign target, how is it established that you are a foreign target? How could you avoid being established as a foreign target?

                            These documents DO help answer those questions.

                            We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

                            by i understand on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 04:57:07 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ridiculous. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            BlueDragon, kharma

                            How do they know?

                            Whether or not they know "for sure" isn't the issue.

                            They know that "the" Google is collecting their data and tracking their online movements - they know that everyone who uses any of the search engines is being watched.  This is not "hard" for anyone with half a brain to understand.

                            I think that you are probably too insulated in the American experience to understand just how aware people in other countries are of internet exposure.

                            I lived in a country that blocked websites that they did not like or that powerful corporations asked them to block.  The government in that country "colluded" with corporate interests to stop the citizens and locals living there from doing business with entities that were not lobbying that government and bribing them to assure that they could do business in that country.

                            I was in Hong Kong when the NSA warrantless wiretapping story broke.  Aside from the fact that while there trying to do the business I was doing was extremely challenging because that country also blocks countless websites, it was quite enlightening when our Chinese handler laughed at out outrage about the warrantless wiretapping.  She looked at us and said, "You are in China.  For us this is normal.  You better get used to it because they have the technology and they will use it.  In China it is just more public."

                          •  Look, the documents are no longer secret (0+ / 0-)

                            You can read them. If after reading them you can't understand how it helps someone trying to circumvent this program then so fine, that's your opinion.

                            I have read the documents, and I apparently have a different conclusion.

                            btw, I love Hong Kong. The last time I was there was before China took it back though. And you're wrong on my experiences, I don't know why everyone has to keep inventing some excuse for people not agreeing with them. What's wrong with "After weighing the evidence available I have reached a conclusion that is not the same as your conclusion".

                            sheesh

                            We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

                            by i understand on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 05:14:37 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Have you lived your life for seven years (0+ / 0-)

                            under the thumb of a quixotic and oppressive government?

                          •  I guess we're done (0+ / 0-)

                            If the only opinions that matter is from those who have lived in China, I'm not interested.

                            We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

                            by i understand on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 05:39:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  'Wiretapping without a warrant' (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    BlueDragon, 3goldens, Tam in CA, kharma

                    i understand, you wrote:

                    If there is evidence of domestic wiretapping without a warrant though, I'll be right there with you opposing it.
                    In these discussion son the NSA Disclosures, I've seen a lot of people say, 'show me proof of X and I'll stop saying Y'.  Then when others bring proof (links/quotes), they refuse to accept that proof.  So, rather than wast my time going to get a link/quotes, I'm going to ask you first:  What, for you, would constitute 'proof'?  And, if the proof I bring shows NSA procedural documents instructing analysts that they have full discretion to access the full database at any time, would you quibble by saying 'but I said wiretapping, not full database access!' or something like that?

                    Because I would purely love to connect you with this link --

                    http://www.guardian.co.uk/...
                    which contains links to the actual NSA documents that you cna read yourself:
                    http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

                    http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

                    and which contains this summaries on those two documents:
                    The top secret documents published today detail the circumstances in which data collected on US persons under the foreign intelligence authority must be destroyed, extensive steps analysts must take to try to check targets are outside the US, and reveals how US call records are used to help remove US citizens and residents from data collection.

                    However, alongside those provisions, the Fisa court-approved policies allow the NSA to:

                    • Keep data that could potentially contain details of US persons for up to five years;

                    • Retain and make use of "inadvertently acquired" domestic communications if they contain usable intelligence, information on criminal activity, threat of harm to people or property, are encrypted, or are believed to contain any information relevant to cybersecurity;

                    • Preserve "foreign intelligence information" contained within attorney-client communications;

                    • Access the content of communications gathered from "U.S. based machine[s]" or phone numbers in order to establish if targets are located in the US, for the purposes of ceasing further surveillance.

                    The broad scope of the court orders, and the nature of the procedures set out in the documents, appear to clash with assurances from President Obama and senior intelligence officials that the NSA could not access Americans' call or email information without warrants.

                    •  Sure... (0+ / 0-)

                      Are you asking me about the documents or about the summary the Guardian wrote?

                      Let me note that I'm not a lawyer and so am not qualified to render any sort of official interpretation of legal documents. That said, I can certainly have my opinions on them.

                      We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

                      by i understand on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 04:24:26 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  So you chose to weasel out of your words (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        kharma

                        when presented with facts that counter your stance.  Thanks for confirming that.

                        I wrote:

                        I'm going to ask you first:  What, for you, would constitute 'proof'?  And, if the proof I bring shows NSA procedural documents instructing analysts that they have full discretion to access the full database at any time, would you quibble by saying 'but I said wiretapping, not full database access!' or something like that?
                        You had written:
                        If there is evidence of domestic wiretapping without a warrant though, I'll be right there with you opposing it.
                        So, apparently, you have chosen to weasel out of your promise to 'oppose if evidence' by claiming that 'you're not qualified to interpret' legal documents.

                        Thanks for that distinction.  The documents I linked to are procedural documents, not legal documents.  They are instructions.

                        And they are, in part, instructions to analysts on how to subvert the law while giving the semblance of compliance.

                        I think you'd ave a hard time convincing any reasonable person that you are not qualified to read and understand instructions and procedures.  

                        Some (rather elderly) guidelines on recognizing trolls can be found in the Kos Rules.  One such guideline states that a person who persists in refusing to accept facts presented to counter his/her position is a troll.  I have certainly seen you behaving in this trollish manner in this thread, and in others.  Your responses to me in this sub-thread convince me that you are capable of trollism.  

                        Those of us who believe that the Bill of Rights is worth  do not look kindly on those who persist in trollish behavior to disrupt discussions of the NSA discussions.

                        •  huh? I just asked a question. *sheesh* (0+ / 0-)

                          I thought they were FISA documents, that would make them legal docs right? They're stamped "FISA" on them.

                          So ask a question and be called a troll? You're making my point.

                          How about I answer the question that I think you're asking (as you don't seem to want to express what you're really asking)...

                          The procedures as I read them do not support the summary as written by the Guardian. Did you read the documents? It seems that this, for example,...

                          Keep data that could potentially contain details of US persons for up to five years
                          Is very misleading, that 5 year limit is a limit on retaining all of the data. Any incorrectly gathered data must be deleted "as soon as practicable" with the court recognizing there are limitations that may make that take time. So as far as I'm concerned, read the documents as the summary is not trustworthy.

                          Additionally, it is clear from the documents that no on thinks it's aok to collect data on "United States persons".

                          Finally, this does not seem to be related to call records, but for data collected about "targeted" persons.

                          In any case, it appears you're just looking to label anyone who you think might oppose your view. Good luck with that.

                          We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

                          by i understand on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 06:36:31 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  If FISA docs are all you know about, catch up (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kharma

                            In my first comment, I said:

                            I'm going to ask you first:  What, for you, would constitute 'proof'?  And, if the proof I bring shows NSA procedural documents instructing analysts that they have full discretion to access the full database at any time, would you quibble by saying 'but I said wiretapping, not full database access!' or something like that?
                            And yes, I was very clearly asking exactly what I intended to be asking.

                            You wrote:

                            The procedures as I read them do not support the summary as written by the Guardian
                            I'm glad to see that you've read the procedures.  And if the documents themselves contradict the Guardian's reporting, please provide quotes supporting your assertion.

                            Your last comment, from "Is very misleading . . ." to the end, kind o falls apart.  Maybe those bullet-points confused your.  Let me make a summary from that text, right here in front of you

                            From the Guardian quote, in my comment above:

                            the Fisa court-approved policies allow the . . . The broad scope of the court orders, and the nature of the procedures set out in the documents, . . .  clash with assurances . . . that the NSA could not access Americans' call or email information without warrants.
                            Did you get that?  The FISA court gave a 'broad scope' (remember 4th Amendment requires 'particularity'); 'apear to clash' is polite British newspaper language for 'contradict' the 'assurances' that NSA could not access without warrants.  Better now?

                            Now, the bullet points tell us that, even though we are being assured that (as the law requires) NSA is not collecting or analyzing any US data, the procedures allow:

                            Keeping US data for up to five years and
                            Keeping it longer and five years if 'usable intelligence' etc  
                            Violation of attorney-client privilege; and
                            Using ('access')all the content gathered

                            Okay.  That's my summary of of the Guardian's summary of the NSA procedural documents.  If you think my summary is flawed, please cite the procedural documents themselves in refutation.

                            I'm almost done, but I have to correct this assertion:

                            In any case, it appears you're just looking to label anyone who you think might oppose your view.
                            Here's what I'm 'looking to do':  On this site, I'm intending to have free, open and unhindered discussions, debates, and information-sharing with others who see that the NSA Disclosures have revealed our own government violating our First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights through their worldwide program of electronic surveillance which captures every electron that flows through the Telecoms' fiber-optic cables.  I will fulfill my responsibilities as a contributor to community moderation, according to the Kos Rules, by refusing to allow people who behave like propaganda sock-puppets to derail this community process.
                          •  That really says it all then doesn't it. (0+ / 0-)
                            I'm intending to have free, open and unhindered discussions, debates, and information-sharing with others who see that the NSA Disclosures have revealed our own government violating our First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights
                            So people who have weighed the evidence and not concluded what you "know" to be the truth need not comment. That certainly comports with your "troll" remarks.

                            I think your interpretation is flawed, as do a lot of other people. But as was obvious from your last comment and reinforced by this one, you're only looking for reinforcement of your views and not challenge.

                            Good luck with that.

                            oh, and you asked me what would convince me? It's very simple... convincing evidence.

                            We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

                            by i understand on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 08:37:13 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And NSA procedural docs did not 'convince' you (0+ / 0-)

                            oh no, that's right, you weaseled out of acknowledging them as being beyond your capacity . . . just before you claimed that you had read them (or hadn't read them?) but either way, they don't count as evidence for you.

                            That right there, you see, qualifies you for the term 'troll' in the Kos rules.  (And I'm trying to be careful to say things like 'engaing in trollish behaviour', because behavior can change.  I hope I managed to to that in this dialogue.  If not, sorry.)

                            You have taken a sentence out of context from my previous comment, in order to suggest that I am suppressing opinion by tossing around a label.  That's not the case.  People can write and participate in diaries as they choose.  But in regard to NSA discussion, I will exercise my site-moderation responsibilities by doing what I can to prevent disruption of those discussions by trollish behavior. Let's re-read my full paragraph together, shall we?  The one you pulled a sentence from?

                            On this site, I'm intending to have free, open and unhindered discussions, debates, and information-sharing with others who see that the NSA Disclosures have revealed our own government violating our First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights through their worldwide program of electronic surveillance which captures every electron that flows through the Telecoms' fiber-optic cables.  I will fulfill my responsibilities as a contributor to community moderation, according to the Kos Rules, by refusing to allow people who behave like propaganda sock-puppets to derail this community process.
                            Yeah, that' pretty much it.  Although I used the 'propaganda sock-puppets' term instead of 'troll'.  And yes, I used 'behave as', not 'are'.  So I'm comfortable with my statement.

                            Oh, and I don't need diarists here to 'reinforce my views'.  My 'views' are 'reinforced' by each one of the NSA documents released by the Guardian, as well as by every article among the many written each day by, say, Wired or Foreign Policy or Business Insider (and other sources) that adds the knowledge of a specialized discipline to the documented facts the Guardian presents.  And I would not say that those sources 'reinforce my views'; rather, they expand my knowledge-base and allow me to consider those documented facts from a broader perspective.  If my 'views' are 'reinforced' by anything, they are reinforced by each governmental 'reassurance' that is issued, repeated by the MSM, and further disseminated here, persistently, by people behaving like propaganda sock-puppets.

                            You're free to think my interpretation is flawed.  In fact, I'd like you to write a diary about that.  Write a diary based on this dialogue and the NSA's procedural documents.  And in that diary, please explain why you disagree with my position that:

                            the NSA Disclosures have revealed our own government violating our First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights through their worldwide program of electronic surveillance which captures every electron that flows through the Telecoms' fiber-optic cables.
                            Please link and quote sources to substantiate your position.  You may not use invalid pseudo-arguments like 'Greenwald sucks' or Snowden is a commie-coward-traitor-poopyhead' or 'cause the government says' or 'but Obama'.  (Well, I suppose you may -- I can't stop you -- but as you say, "Good luck with that.")

                            My 'write a diary' is not a command.  Nor is it a request.  What it is, is a dare.  No, not a dare -- it's a double-dog dare.  Or a double-daaaawg dare, as they say in these parts.  I dare ya.

                            Your failure to comply will win me nonny-nonny-boo-boo rights from now until eternity.  Can you tell I'm grinning?

                          •  No thanks (0+ / 0-)

                            If you can't even go one post with someone who doesn't agree with you without using words like "weasel" and "troll" whatever the context you've constructed in your head, or however carefully you've constructed the insult to not trip any site alarms, I won't play along. I mistakenly thought you were actually interested in my opinion, my bad. And in any case I have no idea why I would write a diary about your flawed interpretation of these documents (assuming you've even read them), are you famous or something?

                            Feel free to claim all the nonny-nonny-boo-boo rights you feel you need.

                            Can you tell I'm grinning?

                            We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

                            by i understand on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 10:16:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Okay. But my grin's better. (0+ / 0-)
                          •  btw have a look at this diary... (0+ / 0-)

                            It's a thoughtful analysis of the documents, rather then just an acceptance of the Guardian's summary.

                            I don't agree with all of the conclusions reached, but the analysis is fair and reasoned.

                            Let's Discuss the Leaked Documents and Other Recent Revelations, shall we?

                            We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

                            by i understand on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 08:51:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'll add it to my reading list. (0+ / 0-)

                            Nice diversion attempt.  Not working.

                            I still dare you to write a diary quoting the 2 NSA procedural documents I linked you to.  And that is still a double-daaawg dare, btw.

                            Scared?  You're literate enough, so don't try that excuse.  Maybe it's that you're under some kind of oath/contract that forbids you from seeing (let alone reading) a classified (although published) document under pain of whatever.

                            So.  Dare ya.  I'll even give you a starting point --

                            'I'm still of the opinion that the government's (or Obama's, or whoever's) assurances that NSA analysts require a warrant to access anyone's personal data in their huge database.  To substantiate my opinion, I'll quote extensively from the two NSA procedural documents published recently by the Guardian.   . . .

          •  Oh and also important -- the legislation (8+ / 0-)

            allowing the President to act as judge, jury and figuratively-speaking executioner by empowering him or her to name someone an "enemy combatant" is also incredibly relevant to this whole story of spying and data collection.

            Kafka's Trial comes to a theater near you - only this time the theatrics will be for real.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (174)
  • Community (70)
  • Baltimore (50)
  • Civil Rights (42)
  • Bernie Sanders (39)
  • Culture (34)
  • Elections (26)
  • Law (26)
  • Economy (25)
  • Education (23)
  • Freddie Gray (23)
  • Hillary Clinton (22)
  • Labor (22)
  • Texas (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • 2016 (21)
  • Racism (20)
  • Media (20)
  • Environment (20)
  • Barack Obama (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site