Years of bogus Obama scandal-mongering means that nobody believes WorldNetDaily anymore, but editor Joseph Farah is desperate to keep his website relevant.

You can smell the desperation in the headline of his May 19 WND column: "Hey! I got audited too!" The column itself reflects the headline: The politically-motivated-IRS-audit train has left the station, and Farah is running after it trying to get aboard, invoking his own history of purportedly politically motivated audits against various entities he used to run:

I was a prominent target of Bill Clinton’s reign of Internal Revenue Service hell on individuals and tax-exempt organizations. And I was the guy who broke the story about it – long before there was a WND. Back then, I had to get the help of the Wall Street Journal, which, to its credit, gave me commentary space to lay out the whole story and turned the sordid tale into an 11-part series of editorials.

But in this day of historical forgetfulness, no one in the media seems to remember how Bill Clinton used the IRS to terrorize Paula Jones and many other women who had the misfortune of crossing his path along with a virtual who’s who of those who made his “enemies list” like me.

Farah fails to note the fact that a joint congressional committee, formed in response to complaints by Farah's Western Journalism Center and other groups, found "no credible evidence" that the IRS was biased against anti-Clinton groups.

Further, Farah expressed no concern that we remember about claims of politiclally motivated IRS audits under the Bush administration -- heck, at one time WND was essentially begging the Bush administration to sic the IRS on a group critical of the administration's agenda.

Farah generally doesn't miss an opportunity to portray himself as a victim, which is why he's so desperate to glom onto the IRS story.

Posted by Terry K. at 2:06 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

NewsBusters associate editor Noel Sheppard is practically a correction-generating machine, frequently putting his right-wing agenda ahead of the truth in such a manner that even the normally reluctant NewsBusters has to issue corrections (though not as many as should be issued).

And so we see it again in a May 21 post, in which Sheppard had repeatedly identified Lizz Winstead, who had made a tweet of questionable taste regarding the Oklahoma tornadoes that she quickly apologized for and deleted after the scope of the devastation became clear -- as co-creator of "Jon Stewart's Daily Show."

Well, no -- Winstead was co-creator of "The Daily Show" as hosted by Craig Kilborn. Near as we can tell, she hasn’t had any direct involvement in the show since 1998 or so, before Stewart became the host.

Well, Sheppard managed to figure that out after the fact, because he has added a correction to his post:

*****Update: The original version of this article referred to Jon Stewart's Daily Show. The headline and the text have been corrected as Craig Kilborn was the original host.

By contrast, Sheppard felt no need to apologize for stating in a tweet, "If contraceptives R 2 B covered by health insurance shouldn't alcohol since sober people don't need birth control?"

Remember, this guy has a actual title (and, presumably, commensurate salary) at the MRC -- which it appears he will continue to have despite his lengthy record of screw-ups.

Posted by Terry K. at 11:03 AM EDT

Updated: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 11:14 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Bob Unruh waxes poetic -- and highly biased -- in a May 19 WorldNetDaily article:

The faux stone columns from his Denver acceptance speech are crumbling, the fireworks have fizzled and the unadulterated adulation of Barack Obama is a sour feeling of disillusion, as a new poll reveals half of America wants him impeached, including a stunning one in four Democrats.

“It may be early in the process for members of Congress to start planning for impeachment of Barack Obama, but the American public is building a serious appetite for it,” said Fritz Wenzel, of Wenzel Strategies, which did the telephone poll Thursday. It has a margin of error of 4.36 percent.

Yes, WND's ethically challenged pollster strikes again. But if you look at the questions Wenzel asked, they are so biased and so clearly designed to elicit an affirmative response for impeachment that it's no better than a push poll:

• The administration of Democrat Barack Obama has still not satisfied congressional and media questions about just what it knew and when it knew it about the terrorist attack on U.S. diplomats in Benghazi, Libya, last September 11. That attack killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya. The Obama administration has changed its explanation of that attack several times since and has so far refused to identify those officials who made key decisions not to send help to stop the attacks, and who decided not to initially call the killings a terrorist attack. Knowing that and anything else you may be aware of about this issue, do you agree or disagree that President Obama should be impeached over his handling of this situation?
• It has been learned that the Internal Revenue Service, under the administration of Democrat Barack Obama, has purposely targeted conservative and Christian groups for harassment over their tax exempt status while giving liberal nonprofit groups little or no scrutiny. Further, the IRS apparently leaked private tax information from these conservative groups to opposing liberal groups who were able to use that confidential information for political advantage. Knowing this and anything else you may be aware of about this issue, do you agree or disagree that President Obama should be impeached over his handling of this situation?
• It has been learned that the U.S. Department of Justice under the administration of Democrat Barack Obama secretly obtained confidential telephone records of many reporters of the Associated Press in Washington, D.C. Attorney General Eric Holder has said his department obtained the phone records without the permission or knowledge of the Associated Press in order to find who in the federal government was leaking information about terrorist plots against America. AP officials have strongly protested this invasion of their privacy but the administration stands by its actions. Knowing this and anything else you may be aware of about this issue, do you agree or disagree that President Obama should be impeached over his handling of this situation?

Since WND is paying Wenzel good money to get the poll results it wants, it certainly won't tell you how abysmal Wenzel's polling was in the 2012 elections. Most notably, in the Missouri Senate race, Wenzel had Todd Akin ahead of Claire McCaskill by 4 points a few weeks before the election -- which McCaskill won by 16 points.

Posted by Terry K. at 7:39 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Susan Jones does her best to take Obama adviser Dan Pfeifer's claim about it being "irrelevant" whether the IRS broke the law by allegedly giving extra scrutiny to the tax-exempt applications of tea-party groups out of context.

The headline of Jones' May 20 CNS article reads, "Obama's Point Man: 'The Law Is Irrelevant,'" and Jones herself wrote that Pfeifer "at one point told ABC's George Stephanopoulos, 'The law is irrelevant.'"

The full context of Pfeifer's remarks is, of course, buried farther down in the article. That context -- which Jones didn't see fit to lead with -- is that the legality of the IRS' actions are "irrelevant" because President Obama considers it to be wrong regardless.

This is yet another case in which CNS decided it would regurgitate right-wing talking points instead of report the truth.

Posted by Terry K. at 11:37 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Earlier this month, WorldNetDaily dipped its toes back into the birther pool after a post-election break. Now, WND is is full pre-election mode -- with all the blackouts of inconvenient facts that go along with it.

Bob Unruh devotes his May 19 WND article to regurgitating the birther talking points regarding the latest lawsuit, and he has no time for inconvenient facts. 

Unruh touts an affidavit from Cold Case Posse chief Mike Zullo asserting that "there was probable cause that forgery and fraud had been committed" regarding Obama's birth certificate. He makes no mention of Frank Arudini's deconstruction of a similar Zullo affidavit pointing out that, among many other falsehoods and deceptions, that Zullo claims to be speaking from "pesonal knowledge," which is simply false based on the legal definition of the term since "a full 60% of the affidavit has been told to him by Jerome Corsi or gleaned from other sources on the Web."

Unruh claims that the cold case posse was assembled by Sheriff Joe Arpaio "at the request of his constituents, who were concerned they were being defrauded by having an ineligible candidate on the 2012 election ballot." That's a highly disingenuous take on the truth; as we documented, WND's Jerome Corsi got the investigation ball rolling by making a birther presentation to a tea party group.

Unruh notes that Roy Moore is on the Alabama Supreme Court overseeing the case in question and "is on record previously questioning Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president," but he doesn't bring up whether such a prejudicial opinion should disqualify him from judging this case.

Unruh fails to disclose that Larry Klayman, who is representing the birther side of this case, has done legal work for WND, thus violating longstanding journalistic ethics about reporting conflicts of interest.

We'll give Unruh a pass on this one since it was failed after his article was published, but don't look for any future reporting on an amicus brief filed by the Alabama Democratic party in the case that exposes yet another flaw in Zullo's affidavit: that it's signed "solely in his personal capacity and without any title, even an imaginary one."

So: The birther games have resumed at WND, and they have as much to do with reality as its earlier anti-Obama jihad.

Posted by Terry K. at 8:53 PM EDT

Updated: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:56 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Remember the Media Research Center's multimillion-dollar campaign last year of demanding that the media "Tell The Truth!" except when it made conservatives look bad? Well, they're still at it.

Jeffrey Meyer huffs in a headline on a May 20 NewsBusters post: 'MSNBC Dutifully Demonizes Conservative Black GOP Politician: ‘He Might Make Todd Akin Look Like A Moderate'." And how, exactly did MSNBC "demonize" this politician? By telling the truth.

Meyer complained that MSNBC's Chuck Todd "hammered the GOP’s nominee for Virginia Lieutenant Governor, African-American pastor E.W. Jackson, as extreme and someone who 'might make Todd Akin look like a moderate.' 'Can the GOP win in 2013 with a ticket of candidates who are best known for being very conservative and very outspoken on social issues?' Todd rhetorically asked before playing several clips of Jackson in a manner worthy of a liberal attack ad." If that wasn't enough, Meyer writes, "Nowhere in the segment did Todd feel it necessary to mention the passionate speech Jackson gave at the convention, instead choosing to mock the candidate as worse than Todd Akin, the U.S. Senate candidate last year now infamous for his "legitimate rape" remarks."

Oddly, Meyer doesn't include the content of the Jackson clips Todd played in the body of his item, only in the transcript at the end.Meyer also doesn't complain of any inaccuracy on Todd's part, only that Todd played accurate clips of Jackson saying:

E.W. JACKSON: Planned Parenthood has been far more lethal to black lives than the KKK ever was and the Democrat Party and their black civil rights allies are partners in this genocide.

[...]

JACKSON: I know that people say, well, it's unfair to associate homosexuality with pedophilia or some of these other perversions, but I believe that there is a direct connection because what they really want is absolute, complete and total sexual freedom.

Does Meyer not think these remarks are controversial? Or is he trying to work the ref as the MRC did last year, trying to discourage any scrutiny of Republican candidates?

Posted by Terry K. at 11:21 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Colin Flaherty is still trying to race-bait, this time in a May 19 WorldNetDaily column insisting that it's "black mobs," and only "black mobs," taking part in "dozens" of incidents in Kansas City:

I’ve talked to police. I’ve talked to victims. I’ve seen video. I’ve read Twitter streams and Facebook pages. I’ve read comments on Kansas City news sites. And every single one of these sources confirms one fact: Everyone involved in the dozens of episodes of racial violence and lawlessness at the Kansas City Plaza is black.

Or are all those observers as racist as the police? Selectively noticing just the black people? Are whites or Asians or Amish also making the Plaza a mini-war zone? And are police ignoring them?

Huh? What is this "Kansas City Plaza" he's talking about? Anyone who is remotely familiar with Kansas City knows the area he's referring to is called Country Club Plaza. If Flaherty had actually done the amount of research he claims he did, he would know that as well.

And are there really "dozens of episodes of racial violence and lawlessness" there? A report from a Kansas City TV station cites "several violent teen fights" in recent years, but we haven't seen any evidence of "dozens" of instances of "black mob violence" there.

But Flaherty wasn't done demonstrating his ignorance. Near the end of his column, he wrote: "Councilman Reed, another question: You want honesty? Then can you please honestly tell me where black people in Kansas got the idea that they can visibly and publicly break the law, hurt people, destroy property, over and over again?"

Again, as anyone remotely familiar with the area knows -- and Flaherty would know too if he'd done the research he claims he has -- Country Club Plaza is in Kansas City, Missouri. Unless Flaherty thinks all the "black people in Kansas" are crossing the border to make Kansas City look bad.

If Flaherty is incapable doing even the most basic research about the city he's writing about, his obsessive race-baiting must be just as factually shoddy.

Posted by Terry K. at 7:19 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

CNSNews.com remains unusually concerned that the federal government is spending money on gay people.

A May 15 article by Elizabeth Harrington states: "While the White House claims its stimulus package 'supported as many as 3.5 million jobs,' none were yielded from a $152,000 project to ready lesbians for 'adoptive parenthood.'" Harrington obviously disapproves of the expenditure, but she doesn't explain why.

CNS does have a particular disdain for LGBT folks being the beneficiary of federal largesse: Of the 20 articles currently listed on CNS' "Waste Watch" page, five of them involve LGBT issues.

Posted by Terry K. at 10:25 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Jane Chastain writes in her May 15 WorldNetDaily column:

Last week, the Pentagon released a report on the soaring number of sexual assaults in the military. These crimes have increased a whopping 129 percent since 2004. The confidential portion of this report indicates that some 26,000 members of our armed forces were sexual assaulted last year alone. However, only 3,347 of these assaults were reported. The reasons are as obvious as they are disturbing.

[...]

Over the years, military necessity has given way to political correctness, which has proved costly and unworkable. This didn’t happen overnight, but the Obama administration recently pulled the pin on two hand grenades that can finish the job by 1) lifting the ban on gays in the military and 2) setting in motion an incremental plan that will place women at the point of the spear in direct ground combat units.

The military has been playing with fire with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and by placing young male and female soldiers and sailors together in barracks and on ships and submarines at the time in their lives when hormones are raging.

Due to constant feminist pressure – not necessity– the line between combat and combat support slowly has been erased to the point that women are now in units that are more physically demanding, and close contact is inevitable.

Men often resent having to carry twice the work load in order to make up for the lack of strength of the female soldiers next to them who receive the same pay.

Also, these soldiers, sailors and airmen not only have to deal with the rigors of military life, but one where no one goes home at night, boredom often sets in and rank rules. No amount of sensitivity training is going to change that!

But if the trend began in 2004, how can be the fault of Obama, who didn't take office until 2008? And how can it be the fault of allowing gays in the military and women to be stationed closer to combat units if, by Chastain's own admission, those changes occurred only "recently"?

Chastain also offers no evidence to back up her claim that "
Men often resent having to carry twice the work load in order to make up for the lack of strength of the female soldiers next to them."

Chastain appears to be much more concerned with attacking Obama than telling the truth.

Posted by Terry K. at 8:16 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

NewsBusters' Tom Blumer is shocked -- shocked! -- that anyone would impute a political motive on the part of Republicans who want to get rid of Attorney General Eric Holder.

Responding in a May 19 post to claims that "Republicans are eager to claim a trophy firing" in targeting Holder, Blumer insisted that the GOP is operating only on the purest of motives:

There are plenty of Republicans, conservatives, and a few on the left who would like to see Holder step down as Attorney General, not because they want a "trophy," but because no man in modern U.S. history and possibly all of U.S. history has so thoroughly politicized his office to the point of becoming his administration's policy enforcement arm, perverting the rule of law almost beyond recognition in the process. People who genuinely care about this country's deterioration as a civil society want Holder gone because his departure may stop or slow down the bleeding and may force out some or most of the truth he and his department have been hiding.

Blumer went on to whine that no evidence was offered that Republicans' anti-Holder operation is partisan -- but Blumer offered no evidence that Republicans' motives are as pure as the driven snow.

Since this is NewsBusters, you can be sure that someone was doing the very same thing Blumer was criticizing. That someone is Noel Sheppard, who just a few hours before Blumer's post went up was dismissing the idea that IRS scrutiny of tea party groups could be anything other than political:

"Can you see in your mind's eye a way that this might not have been political, that this was a misguided stupid way to sort, but that they didn't intend it to be some kind of political attempt to harass the Tea Party?"

So actually asked CNN's Candy Crowley of her guest Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) concerning the Internal Revenue Service scandal Sunday[.]

[...]

So Crowley actually thinks it's possible that this wasn't political?!?

Apparently, according to NewsBusters, Democrats operate only for political reasons, and Republicans care only about the country.

Posted by Terry K. at 2:28 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Acuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid isn't the only right-wing writer pretending that Joel Gilbert hasn't been thoroughly discredited.

A May 16 WorldNetDaily article by Jerome Corsi is devoted to uncritically repeating Gilbert's claim that he's being harrassed by the IRS, which allegedly leaked financial information about him to a reporter. Neither Gilbert nor Corsi offer any evidence for this, of course, but Corsi does -- in an unusual act of journalism on his part -- obtain a response from the reporter in question.

Corsi reverts to form, however, by letting Gilbert claim that "I was targeted because ‘Dreams from My Real Father’ exposes Obama as a pathological liar. ... Obama intentionally obscured a deeply disturbing family background in order to hide a Marxist agenda, completely incompatible with American values. It was an unacceptable manipulation of the electorate and unquestionably the biggest scandal in American history.”

Needless to say, there's no mention of the work Loren Collins did in discrediting some of the major claims Gilbert made in his film. On the other hand, Corsi made no mention of the main claim Collins debunked -- that Obama's mother posed for nude pictures taken by Davis -- even though Corsi hyped that claim when Gilbert's film was first released.

Is this as close to a correction we will ever see from Corsi? Or is he so gutless that he won't admit Gilbert got it wrong lest it cause his entire birther conspiracy to crumble?

Posted by Terry K. at 8:14 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Last month, a study by economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff claiming that a country's economic growth becomes impaired when its debt level exceeds 90 percent of gross domestic product was discredited by researchers at the University of Massachusetts, who looked through Reinhart and Rogoff's data and found selective exclusion of data and a coding error.

You wouldn't know it by reading any website operated by the Media Research Center -- as with its blackout on the racially charged work of ex-Heritiage Foundation researcher Jason Richwine, the MRC has simply refused to tell its readers about the discrediting of Reinhart and Rogoff.

It's doubly odd because the MRC approvingly cited Reinhart and Rogoff's work a month before the debunking. A March 13 TimesWatch item by Clay Waters highlighted a quote fromRogoff in a New York Times article on federal budget issues that "eventually made room for dissenting 'right-leaning' views."

The MRC has been obsessed with attacking other media outlets for failure to cover stories it deems important, i.e. Kermit Gosnell. But what moral authority does such criticism have when the MRC does the exact same thing it attacks others for doing?

Posted by Terry K. at 11:39 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

But what does Obama care? As I’ve said elsewhere recently, he’s not black, anyway. He’s half-a-Kenyan whose commie wacko mother’s family owned slaves. And I would support the arguments of those who assert Obama’s forebears on his father’s side were slave traders.

[...]

I offer two final thoughts. One is that I would bet a good cigar the only reason Obama is with us today is because abortion wasn’t legal when he was born. The other is when he closes his eyes in this life and opens in the next, he and Margaret Sanger can share eternity in the fires of hell discussing what a wonderful job her progeny are doing.

-- Mychal Massie, April 29 WorldNetDaily column

Obama has done it. He has brought America down. It only took him just over four years. The Republicans could have stopped him. They didn’t.

How did the nihilistic left succeed in destroying America? Simple. They learned just a little of the capitalism they hate, and they drove your nation into outright bankruptcy.

-- Christopher Monckton, May 7 WND column

This lack of moral courage on the part of politicians is why redistribution of wealth has long been an accepted part of our modern socialist fabric. All the Kenyan Kommie wants to do is move things along at a faster pace.

-- Robert Ringer, May 8 WND column

In 2008, a lifelong Marxist named Barack Obama had the good fortune to run against Sen. John McCain and an economy wrecked by George W. Bush who actually admitted, just months before the election, that he was abandoning the free-enterprise system to save the free-enterprise system. Obama, too, disguised his vicious anti-Americanism with the help of an equally vicious anti-American and unprincipled media, and won.

Obama has been “blaming America first” ever since. It’s what he does. He’s never responsible for anything that goes wrong. He’s in his fifth year of blaming all of America’s ills on his predecessor – and getting away with it because of a compliant and virtually state-run media.

-- Joseph Farah, May 8 WND column

Welcome to the endgame, America. Judgment has arrived. We will take the world’s illegal immigrants, on the off-chance they may someday pay taxes. Obamacare death panels will soon set up shop in America’s nursing homes. “Yes, we know you were promised Medicare, but there is no money. We aborted those children. No taxpayers, no money. No money, no treatment. Sorry. Next!”

-- Craige McMillan, May 10 WND column

Here’s a question for you. What do the Obamas have in common with the boot-strappin’ Appalachians and the bearded hillbilly “Backyard Oilmen” of the Discovery Channel reality series set in south central Kentucky?

The answer is nothing. The Appalachian and hillbilly Backyard Oilmen worked to get where they are; they love America; they’re honest, God-fearing men, and they respect one another. None of those attributes describe the Obamas.

-- Mychal Massie May 13 WND column

For one thing, we know Obama likes spending time with his daughters, especially when the taxpayer is picking up the tab. Next, anyone who saw him sink only two of the 22 shots he took on Easter Sunday knows he is Buster Keaton’s equal when it comes to physical comedy. And, finally, after spending four years pulling the strings of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Charley Rangel, Henry Waxman and Jay Carney, he has already put in more time with puppets than Burr Tillstrom, Jim Henson and Mr. Rogers, put together.

-- Burt Prelutsky, May 14 WND column

We keep hearing that the Benghazi scandal is only in its early stages, and that when all the facts come out, it could bring down the Obama administration. Scary stuff, eh? Well, I have news for you: It doesn’t matter how much more information comes out – including information that leads directly to Barack Obama – there will be no serious consequences to the biggest political cover-up in modern American history. Please quote me on that.

-- Robert Ringer, May 16 WND column

If Barack Hussein Obama is not impeached, we need look no further than the rising power of political correctness for the reason.

-- Tom Tancredo, May 17 WND column

There’s just one difference between ["Casablanca" character Capt. Louis] Renault and Obama.

In the end of the movie, Renault turns out to be a good guy. Even though he is playing ball with the Nazis and doing their bidding in “Casablanca,” that’s not where his heart is. I don’t hold out much hope that Obama is going to turn himself in for his high crimes and misdemeanors. Nor do I hold out much hope he is going to reform and become a defender of the Constitution and those previously mentioned American principles.

He’s made it clear to those of us who are awake that he despises the American way.

He hates pretty much everything it stands for.

So isn’t it time for all good, decent, patriotic, God-fearing Americans to demand he leave office at once or be impeached?

-- Joseph Farah, May 17 WND column

Make no mistake, America. The mob has its foot on your throat. The 2012 election was a raft of Chicago excrement, spread over the entire country and oozing out of its institutions. Mitt Romney needs to have a talk with the ghost of his father some evening over a few too many alcoholic beverages and a good Cuban cigar. Then he needs to call a press conference and demand a new election. Let’s see if Obama’s 32 percent majority elects him a third time.

-- Craige McMillan, May 17 WND column

Holder is a shrewd operator; how else could a person so corrupt continue to serve as attorney general of the United States of America? But, by his own actions, he is a perfect partner for President Obama. The two of them are criminals and must eventually and swiftly be brought to justice before they succeed at destroying this country. I will seek their indictment before a Citizens Grand Jury in Ocala, Fla., but the official organs of government must also be held to account. Congress must do its job despite the ongoing fraudulent criminal investigation of the Obama-Holder Justice Department. Short of this, the American people must rise up and themselves take care of legal business as they did in 1776! The die is cast!

-- Larry Klayman, May 17 WND column

Posted by Terry K. at 12:30 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Brent Bozell is positively giddy that some TV shows with gay themes are getting cancdeled:

The annual network list of canceled primetime shows cannot be pleasing to the progressives who measure shows based on their cultural and political usefulness. "TV Will Be a Lot Less Gay Next Year," the commissars complained at Slate.com. They counted 11 canceled shows that featured regular gay characters.

That bothersome thing called the market: why must it get in the way!

CBS's gay sitcom "Partners" lasted six episodes and was canceled shortly after Barack Obama's victory. NBC's "Smash" only featured four regular gay characters, but it couldn't keep anyone watching. The most prominent victim was "The New Normal," Ryan Murphy's NBC sitcom credited by many leftists with paving the way for America's growing support for the gay agenda — and helping with Obama's reelection.

Bozell then makes a very bizarre statement: "Murphy is in bed with Obama, as it were." Bozell claims this refers to Murphy creating allegedly pro-Obama episodes in the shows he has created,but it could very wall also be a sly reference to the sleazy rumors around Obama's sex life right-wingers like Jerome Corsi like to spread.

This follows one of Bozell's MRC employees similarly dancing on the grave of "The New Normal," and it fits right in with the MRC's anti-gay agenda.

Posted by Terry K. at 10:55 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink