Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, April 18, 2017

So theres this woman you see in the news. She is part of this Antifa group in Berkley. Nathan Damigo, a marine veteran who was out there saw that she was putting M80s (fireworks) inside glass containers, and throwing them at the rally goers. So she was literally making IED's.
You can see in this picture that she has her weapon in her hand as Damigo hit her in the face to subdue the bomb threat.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

after this "so called" savage beating, she shows no physical signs during interview.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

You just don't punch a woman.

#1 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-04-18 07:29 PM | Reply

Without the text-2-speech commentary that video shows nothing.

LOL. She probably has parking tickets too.

#2 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-04-18 07:33 PM | Reply

The left has told us a gun owner or cop should never shoot someone even in self defense unless they are in danger. You must even retreat if you can. Using that standard, this chick deserved to get punched. She could have easily retreated.

We've been told Darren Wilson should not have fired his weapon when he was being rushed by someone who had already tried to take his gun and Zimmerman should not have shot Trayvon even though all the witnesses said Zimmerman was getting pummeled.

I will hold this woman to the same standard.

#3 | Posted by jamesgelliott at 2017-04-18 08:14 PM | Reply

Don't punch women in the face.

Don't go to protests to fight people.

Trumpers fail both common sense tests.

#4 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-04-19 12:09 AM | Reply

"Don't punch women in the face."

Nope. I will defend myself as vigorously as needed regardless of the gender attacker. The left should especially understand all genders should expect to get treated equally.

AND HOW DARE YOU ASSURE THE ATTACKERS GENDER - ;-)

#5 | Posted by jamesgelliott at 2017-04-19 06:48 AM | Reply

Trumpers fail both common sense tests.

#4 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

you know what else?

"You don't spit into the wind'

#6 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-04-19 06:59 AM | Reply

Look at Trumpers rushing to defend a neo-nazi. Nice.

#7 | Posted by 726 at 2017-04-19 07:56 AM | Reply

Don't punch women in the face.

#4 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER AT 2017-04-19 12:09 AM | FLAG:

That's sexist.

#8 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-04-19 10:06 AM | Reply

"Don't punch women in the face"

Sounds sexist and demeaning, assuming that women are less deserving of a punch or less capable of handling themselves. Are not women equally as deserving and capable as a man? Not only that, but how was the guy who punched her even sure she was a she? What if she was feeling like a man that day? I have it on pretty good authority that we are to never assume someone's gender. Also, I couldn't help but notice that she has culturally appropriated dredlocks, but I haven't heard anyone from BLM make a statement about it, so I assume she's currently transracial.

I don't remember who first said it, but there's a quote about equality being a double-edged sword.

#10 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-04-19 10:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

A man should never hit a woman out of anger.

But in self defense? Fine - although guys who claim "self defense" as an excuse to hit a woman in a situation that is only superficially threatening shouldn't get a free pass.

Personally, I think a guy who punches an unarmed woman who is charging him is a panicky wimp at best and probably something much worse. I would think most men would first react by trying to defelect the blow/push her out of the way/throw her to the ground rather than punch her in the face. If she proves to be too capable for that and starts landing pucnhes or if she has a weapon, then punching seems more reasonable.

As is usually the case when two people brawl, this situation seems to be a case of two bad people fighting each other. There is no good guy.

#11 | Posted by Sully at 2017-04-19 10:51 AM | Reply

"Are not women equally as deserving and capable as a man?"

Just wow. You take your already sullied reputation and reduce it on purpose? I actually used to have some respect for you. That was a while ago though.

#12 | Posted by danni at 2017-04-19 11:04 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#11 | Posted by Sully, Superficially threatening? Tell you what Sully, get a M80, you can still buy them in Mexico I am told. Put the M80 in a glass bottle and light it. Stand near the bottle as the explosion occurs. After you return from the hospital you can inform us how superficial the danger was. BTW Xrays can't see glass, they have to use a cat scan or sonar to find such fragments.

#13 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-04-19 11:17 AM | Reply

#12 I'm intentionally turning arguments around on those making them. Unintended consequences are a downright pain in the ass. Progressives have been advocating for LGBTQIAABBQ for decades, and they're starting to get what they want, but they're also getting things they didn't ask for. Today, there are transgender women, born as men, who are being allowed to compete in athletic competitions as women because nobody will tell them they can't. Why would someone in a fistfight be held to a higher standard?

If you apply one standard of conduct, you apply it to EVERYONE. To do otherwise is hypocritical. You can't "have your cake and eat it too". Equality is equality. Same rights. Same responsibilities. Same protections or lack of protections. Held to the same standards in every possible way. To apply rights but not responsibilities would be hypocritical. I remember 20 years or so ago, a spokeswoman for NOW saying that while women were completely equal, they should not have to register for the draft "because we're women". Most of the groups marching for these rights or those rights or some form of recognition aren't looking for equality...not real equality. They just want the up side.

#14 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-04-19 11:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Don't go to protests to fight people."

What do you think she was there for?

She was just not used to anyone fighting back.

#15 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-04-19 12:00 PM | Reply

"Look at Trumpers rushing to defend a neo-nazi. Nice."

Look at progressives looking to defend the militant left.

#16 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-04-19 12:01 PM | Reply

#11 | Posted by Sully, Superficially threatening? Tell you what Sully, get a M80, you can still buy them in Mexico I am told. Put the M80 in a glass bottle and light it. Stand near the bottle as the explosion occurs. After you return from the hospital you can inform us how superficial the danger was. BTW Xrays can't see glass, they have to use a cat scan or sonar to find such fragments.

#13 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-04-19 11:17 AM | Reply

I don't buy into your BS premise that he was about to be harmed by such a device. If she was about to throw an M-80 bomb at the guy who hit her, she certainly would not have been running towards him. At the time he hit her, there was a 0% chance that he was about to with this M-80 bomb you're pretending to be so worried about. And if someone is about to throw on of these at you, it would be stupid to charge them anyway. You're being a drama queen rather than making an argument that reflects the reality of the situation.

#17 | Posted by Sully at 2017-04-19 12:18 PM | Reply

"Are not women equally as deserving and capable as a man?"
Just wow. You take your already sullied reputation and reduce it on purpose? I actually used to have some respect for you. That was a while ago though.
#12 | Posted by Danni at 2017-04-19 11:04 AM | Reply | Flag Anti Women's Equality

Who woulda' thunk it?

#18 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-04-19 12:53 PM | Reply

If he felt he was protecting others from being injured by her thrown bottles (no bomb-talk necessary), which would be relatively easy given the photographic evidence, facebook statements, and witness testimony he would probably be safe from conviction in California.
California Self-defense and Special Situations

3.1. Defense of others/defense of property

Defense of others

California self-defense law doesn't just allow you to act to defend yourself from harm. You can also use self-defense as a legal defense when you acted to defend someone else.

The requirements for defending others are the same as for defending yourself. You must:
1.Reasonably believe that the other person is in imminent danger of being killed, injured, or touched unlawfully,
2.Reasonably believe that you need to use force to prevent this, and
3.Use no more force than necessary.

#19 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-04-19 12:58 PM | Reply

#17 | Posted by Sully, So you admit that the woman in question was armed. Thus the guy's action can be argued to be self defense. BTW, how long does it take to light a fuse? You seem to ignore the reality of the situation because the woman in question was assaulting someone you may disagree with. The reality was she had been and was prepared to throw an IED into a crowd of people. Would you have been more pleased if she had thrown a Molotov Cocktail?

#20 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-04-19 01:07 PM | Reply

So you admit that the woman in question was armed. Thus the guy's action can be argued to be self defense. BTW, how long does it take to light a fuse? You seem to ignore the reality of the situation because the woman in question was assaulting someone you may disagree with. The reality was she had been and was prepared to throw an IED into a crowd of people. Would you have been more pleased if she had thrown a Molotov Cocktail?

#20 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-04-19 01:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Give it a rest, with the strawmanning. I didn't say she was armed. I responded to your histrionics about the M-80 bomb by correctly pointing out that this jackass was in no danger of being hit by one at the time he punched her. So your dramatic description of the damage the idiot may have suffered had one went off in his face is irrelevant. I don't know if she was armed and neither do you.

And why even bring up lighting a fuse? The punch is on video. She was not lighting a when she was punched.

She was rushing at the guy aggressively when he hit her. That is as threatening as you can make her out to be given that the video proves your embelishments to be untrue. IMO, only a coward or someone who gets off beating women hits a woman in that situation without trying to deflect/push/tackle her instead.

If what he did technically fits the legal description of self defense, I'm fine with that. I don't care if he is prosecuted or not. And I don't consider her a victim. But he's a ----- no matter how you slice it. The average dude is going to be more than capable of handling a 120 girl rushing at him without throwing punches.

#21 | Posted by Sully at 2017-04-19 01:32 PM | Reply

... even though all the witnesses said Zimmerman was getting pummeled.

Once again, there's no witness who saw the start of the fight. If Zimmerman started it Martin had every right to defend himself.

#22 | Posted by rcade at 2017-04-19 01:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The woman was willingly participating in a brawl. She and the guy who hit her were both up to no good.

I like how this post describes Nathan Damigo only as a "Marine veteran." He's a white nationalist who founded Identity Evropa and had been imprisoned for armed robbery.

#23 | Posted by rcade at 2017-04-19 01:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Gentlemen should never hit a lady. However, she's no lady.

#24 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-04-19 01:46 PM | Reply

This isn't anything special. It's mutual combat between morons.

#25 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-04-19 02:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Look at Trumpers rushing to defend a neo-nazi. Nice.

#7 | Posted by 726 at 2017-04-19 07:

incorrect statement because your use of the word neo-nazi is a gd lie.....

#26 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-04-19 03:06 PM | Reply

" He's a white nationalist who founded Identity Evropa and had been imprisoned for armed robbery.

#23 | Posted by rcade at 2017-04-19 01:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

nothing to do about anything to do in this melee....

Identity Evropa

"We are an American based identitarian organization dedicated to promoting the interests of People of European Heritage."

so what ?

#27 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-04-19 03:12 PM | Reply

and I"m a conservative....not alt right or support this group mentioned.....but the ire is against him being there while many of you excuse or don't even mention the others involved in this....

so therefore I DECLARE this comment to be the last one here I'll read...now that I've got the conversation started..

CONGRATS sitzkrieg

This isn't anything special. It's mutual combat between morons.

#25 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-04-19 02:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

#28 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-04-19 03:24 PM | Reply

I agree with Allahakbar2.
They are a White Power organizaton.
So what?

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-04-19 03:25 PM | Reply

I agree idwith Allahakbar2.
They are a White Power organizaton.
So what?

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2017

one point for creativity on name.....minus ten for the rest being stupid....

keep trying.

#30 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-04-19 03:36 PM | Reply

support this group mentioned....

AND AS USUAL, you ignore that comment from the post...

I don't support them but I will defend themgainst yours and others "cut and paste"... neo nazi blah blah blah...repeat what you hear on msm and read from others doing the same..

I'm suspicious that you and others even knew what they were before rcade posted that...

apparently this FEMALE TERRORIST knew who he was....

#31 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-04-19 03:39 PM | Reply

Are you saying they are not a White Power organization?

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-04-19 03:40 PM | Reply

Or are you saying, they are a white power organization, so what?

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-04-19 03:41 PM | Reply

"I'm suspicious that you and others even knew what they were before rcade posted that..."

All I know is what you quoted in #27.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-04-19 03:43 PM | Reply

I only saw the video once but in the heat of chaos like that I doubt I would have thought she was a woman. Wasn't her face partially covered and/or wearing a hoodie?
Whatever. I wouldn't expect that I'd be fighting a woman in the midst of that mess, and I doubt he did either.
Even if he did know she was a woman I don't know why anyone in their right mind would let her hit you, or a buddy, given the context.

Provoking a woman and then using that as a justification to punch her isn't the same as some crazy chick charging you aggressively.
As usual, two bags meet, and I get entertained.

#35 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-04-19 04:39 PM | Reply

and THIS IS A PICTURE of the anti trump crowd.....as the caption says..

when the trump haters begin to dress like ISIS....then you've elected the right person...

scontent.fhou1-2.fna.fbcdn.net

#36 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-04-19 04:47 PM | Reply

I'm suspicious that you and others even knew what they were before rcade posted that..."

All I know is what you quoted in #27.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-04-19 03:43 P

I'm saying that most leftists posters every where do little more than cut and paste and repeat what they hear from some leftist idiotic radical on tv or some insanely left wing rag of ----....not all, of course, but a large...very large number as I go through the left wing blogisphere of bigotry and hatred of people with American values.

this female TERRORIST rushed this person and was seen throwing bottles with something in them.....plus THIS is virtually the ONLY thing seen from this event......and it's all by design...

the 'so what' was in reference to the link between the guy and this female....there's no hint that he was seeking her out...

AND AS I SAID before...she set up a go fund me for her expenses...next day she's being interviewed and her face looks like a commercial on tv.....SHE'S A FRAUD AND A CON ARTIST...

CARRY ON...

#37 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-04-19 04:53 PM | Reply

Those "liberals" are dressed like cops. Not ISIS.

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-04-19 05:13 PM | Reply

Auburn police, unlikely Berkeley, know how to handle these fascist "anti-fascists".

twitchy.com

#39 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-04-19 05:19 PM | Reply

Boot lickers rejoice!

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-04-19 05:35 PM | Reply

"bigotry and hatred of people with American values."

Except your side is out there pimping "European Heritage values." Not American values.

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-04-19 05:40 PM | Reply

"Progressives" celebrate the death of free speech in Berkeley.

www.washingtonpost.com

#42 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-04-19 05:43 PM | Reply

incorrect statement because your use of the word neo-nazi is a gd lie...

Why are you afraid to tell the truth about Damigo? He founded a white nationalist movement. He's allied with Richard Spencer. It's as plain as the nose on your face that his group is part of the neo-Nazi movement in the U.S.

#43 | Posted by rcade at 2017-04-19 05:50 PM | Reply

"Why are you afraid to tell the truth about Damigo? He founded a white nationalist movement."

Is he a socialist?

The Nazi's were. Isn't it incorrect to refer to someone as a "National Socialist" when Socialism isn't part of their schtick? Or is the entering argument that White Supremacists are, by the virtue of their beliefs, also socialists?

#44 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-04-19 06:03 PM | Reply

Wow, an even dumber "defense" than Afkababbles was able to muster!

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-04-19 06:13 PM | Reply

#44

Someone who believes the Blue Sky and Apple Pie Bill is about sky and pie. Or that the "Democratic People's Republic of (North) Korea" is a democratic republic.

Nazis used the socialist name because it was popular at the time, not because it fit their ideology.

www.britannica.com

#46 | Posted by Corky at 2017-04-19 06:29 PM | Reply

Is he a socialist? The Nazi's were.

Under your logic, North Korea is a democracy because its name is Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

#47 | Posted by rcade at 2017-04-19 07:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Is he a socialist?
The Nazi's were.
#44 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-04-19 06:03 PM | FLAG: idiot

No. They weren't.

But. You're an idiot.

So. Carry on.

#48 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-04-19 07:19 PM | Reply

So now self identifying is a bad thing? Sheesh. I wish you guys would make up your minds.

Screw it. I'm just going back to hating anyone other than white broads.

#49 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-04-19 07:28 PM | Reply

Going... back?

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-04-19 07:32 PM | Reply

I'm going (going) back (back) to Cali (Cali).

#51 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-04-19 07:58 PM | Reply

So now self identifying is a bad thing?

Not at all.

Unless it's false advertising.

#52 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-04-19 08:10 PM | Reply

"Wow, an even dumber "defense" than Afkababbles was able to muster!"

It was a simple question...must be that the answer is not so simple.

"Nazis used the socialist name because it was popular at the time, not because it fit their ideology."

You're right, sort of. Fascism really emerged as a force to be reckoned with under the leadership of a militant Italian Socialist named Benito Mussolini, who begged the question, why could socialism not be implemented at the national, as opposed to international level, as prescribed by the COMINTERN under the Third Socialist International. This was a cardinal sin to may true socialists and adherents to the principles espoused under the Third International, and led to a lot of butthurt feelings, even though the goals of the two movements were largely aligned. It wasn't so much that the fascists and Socialists existed at opposite ends of the spectrum as it was that they were competing for the same hearts and minds.

Anyway, the Nazis adopted principles similar to those of the Italians Fascists, laid out clearly in their 25 point program. This program outlined the party's commitments to providing jobs for every German, the abolition of "unearned" income, a division of business profits, the creation of a healthy middle class (sound familiar? Bernie talks about his a lot), and more. IN fact, the Germans didn't only do this within Germany, but implemented many of the same programs in captured territories. Reinhard Heydrich was not only the butcher of Prague, but Czechoslovakia's first progressive ruler as well...at least from an economic perspective.

#53 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-04-19 08:22 PM | Reply

What an informative screed in defense of "European" values!

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-04-19 08:30 PM | Reply

They were really nationalists who espoused facist ideals.

"The seizure of power by Italian Fascist leader Benito Mussolini in the March on Rome in 1922 drew admiration by Hitler, who less than a month later had begun to model himself and the Nazi Party upon Mussolini and the Fascists. Hitler presented the Nazis as a form of German fascism."
en.m.wikipedia.org

You can call an apple an orange all day. But at the end of the day. It's still an apple.

#58 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-04-19 09:11 PM | Reply

Hitler & Mussolini used socialist ideas. That doesn't mean socialism is bad, it just means evil people use it too.

#59 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-04-19 09:14 PM | Reply

Madbomber: Stop trolling. Nobody is dumb enough to genuinely believe that North Korea is a democracy because of its high rate of voting.

#60 | Posted by rcade at 2017-04-19 09:26 PM | Reply

Madbomber: Stop trolling.

You might as well ask him to stop breathing.

#61 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-04-19 09:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I've always thought it pretty funny that every petty warlord puts Democratic or The Peoples in their group name.

Peoples Liberation whatever
Democratic United whatever
blah blah blah

#62 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-04-19 09:40 PM | Reply

Of course North Korea has virtually 100% voting. Doesn't make it a democracy. Voting is mandatory. That's what a Stalinist state does. It was the same in the Soviet Union.

#63 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-04-19 10:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I believe both Australia and New Zealand also have mandatory voting laws but I am to lazy to try to look that up with this hunk of junk computer that I have

#64 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2017-04-19 11:24 PM | Reply

Voting should be mandatory albeit with a "none" option and it should also be a Federal holiday.

Im not saying the penalty got not voting should be severe. Maybe your name gets bumped to the top of the jury duty list or something.

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-04-20 12:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#65

I like that idea. However, living in California, we normally ignore jury summons. I did just last week and I feel bad. As a criminology major, I feel obligated. Okay, okay...time to face the music. I'll call in and let them know I "lost" the summons in the mail.

But still, I like the idea of 'influencing' people to vote beyond the BS "Vote or Die" campaigns MTV seems to think is effective.

#66 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-04-20 12:31 AM | Reply

"Madbomber: Stop trolling. Nobody is dumb enough to genuinely believe that North Korea is a democracy because of its high rate of voting."

True. What I'd like to illuminate is the probability of democracy producing an unfavorable or negative outcome is about equal to the probability of producing a favorable outcome. If 51% of voters in ISIS controlled territory elect to murder and rape the remaining 49%, that's a perfectly democratic outcome. Ands while many progressives could abhor an outcome like that, they're reliant on a system where 51% of the population can decide how to spend the money earned by the remaining 49%. Komrade Bernie's platform would have required that sort of ground work in order to succeed.

#67 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-04-20 09:08 AM | Reply

Don't punch women in the face.
Don't go to protests to fight people.
Trumpers fail both common sense tests.

#4 | Posted by BruceBanner

Why doesn't your post include "Don't come to a protest with an M80 bomb"?

Are you condoning the use of violence, which a bomb surely is..

#68 | Posted by boaz at 2017-04-20 09:19 AM | Reply

Don't go to protests to fight people.
#4 | Posted by BruceBanner

Are you condoning the use of violence...
#68 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Obviously not. You stupid ---------.

#69 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-04-20 12:48 PM | Reply

Whose stupid mom did Boaz bang?

#70 | Posted by Sully at 2017-04-20 12:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Whose stupid mom did Boaz bang?
#70 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2017-04-20 12:58 PM | FLAG:

His children's...

#71 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-04-20 07:42 PM | Reply

So according to the left on this blog, it is permissible to come to a rally of people you disagree with and come with weapons. Like the professor of ethics who was using a bicycle lock on a chain to assault people at Berkley. He has been arrested as we blog. He did manage to fracture at least one person's skull. I agree with very few. But a flawed individual whom I admire once said "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man". Freedom of speech means that some things said will offend you, maybe hurt your feelings or make you angry. Tough -------. Civil discourse demands that anyone who is motivated to express themselves should have the opportunity to do so. Bad Ideals do not resonate with very many people. The KKK does not have many members, nether does the Antifa. Simplified black white narratives are never true. Antifa is just another hate group. Willing to assault anyone to make their vague points. They may attack people you disagree with but they will assault you too if you are alone and in the vicinity. I do not support "white nationalism" but the best way to silence them is to allow them to speak and see the reaction they get from the public. Some ideals are repugnant, hateful, even stupid. Nut attacking a speaker is the best way to give him credibility.

#72 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-04-21 01:29 PM | Reply

So according to the left on this blog, it is permissible to come to a rally of people you disagree with and come with weapons.

There are people on the right who open carry at rallies. Did you ever have a problem with that?

Personally, I'm against weapon-carrying protesters on the left and right. So are a bunch of others here. I think your "according to the left" claim is dubious.

#73 | Posted by rcade at 2017-04-21 02:16 PM | Reply

73 | Posted by rcade, Actually I agree, toting firearms in a public place is looking for a fight. People are generally not intimidated by weapons, they just get angrier. Then, ether escalate or respond in kind. That's all we need now is a bunch of hot heads engaging in a gun fight on a city street. "Ideals are peaceful, history is not".

#74 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-04-21 02:50 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort