Skip to main content

View Diary: Naked Capitalism: "...Democrat Bank Stooges Launch Bills to Permit Bailouts, Deregulate Derivatives" (109 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Seriously? Dissing Elizabeth Warren??? (11+ / 0-)

    From the Yves Smith post:

    And where is Elizabeth Warren when a real bill is moving forward?
    What a load. Yves gives herself away in the title, "Democrat Bank Stooges..."

    I ♥ President Barack Obama.

    by ericlewis0 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:35:42 PM PDT

    •  I happen to think Elizabeth Warren's the best... (64+ / 0-)

      ...thing to happen to the U.S. Senate in, perhaps, decades. I also think I'm going to ignore folks that cherry-pick shit out of otherwise-important content. Sorry, if I've done something sacrilegious...but, I'm used to the type of crap you're pulling here...it's happened to me hundreds of times in this community. (Citing the Wall Street Journal, and being criticized for it by folks that do it themselves; focusing upon tangential matter that's not pertinent to the gist of the story, and on and on and on; Greenwald; FireDogLake, etc., etc.) And, frankly, the agenda's transparent. Newsflash: I do NOT agree 100% with the positions of many of the folks whose work I crosspost. (And, Eric, I actually like you!)

      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

      by bobswern on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:45:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Are they working for the banks or for us? (16+ / 0-)

      This bill sure won't help average Americans.

      I give you credit for reading the whole article.

      look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

      by FishOutofWater on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:53:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Look at the conclusion (4+ / 0-)
      Please contact your Senator and Representative and tell them you are firmly opposed to these bills since they are all “gimmie my bailout and leave me alone” proposals from the banks. One bit of good news here is that at least on paper, Republicans are not happy about the fact that Dodd Frank resolutions aren’t likely to work even before the launch of this effort to assure they won’t ever be attempted. Spencer Bachus issued a paper last year criticizing the inadequacy of the Dodd Frank resolution provisions. So it can’t hurt to tell Democrats that they need to stand behind Dodd Frank, and remind Republicans that they’ve stood for “no more bailouts” and they need not to allow those sneaky ex Goldman Democrats to allow Wall Street to suck resources away from Main Street. This sort of bill depends on the complacency and indifference of the public to get passed, and correctly painting its as an egregious piece of pro-bailout pork might make some Congresscritters loath to be associated with it.
      Even though these are bills pushed out of House Republican majority committee, the message is Democrats suck and at least there is good news about Republicans. The fact that the bills are gutting Dodd-Frank, which the diary content frames as needing to be protected, the Republicans, who have been trying to dismantle it, are not the culprits. The Democrats (likely a few blue dogs) and Elizabeth Warren are supposed to be held as suspect.  
      •  Hating on Rs, while always a good thing, is far (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ericlewis0, blueoasis

        from the only thing. Policies are what matters, party affiliations be damned.

        The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

        by Wolf10 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:11:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You're missing the obvious: (25+ / 0-)

        The Public is getting in a "hang 'em all" mood. The Democratic leadership is stupidly aligning itself closer and closer to the Criminal Banker Class.

        The Republicans -- who are part and parcel of said class -- is nonetheless positioning itself with the Public (and remember a Public roundly sick of the rampant corruption of Wall Street) as being against more bailouts and such.

        In short, instead of destroying once and for all Reaganomics and all the attendant disease which flowed from it, including the current Depression, our Party chooses time and again to do everything it possibly can to justify Republican/Bankster frames.

        The Republicans did this in 2010, when they scared the seniors into thinking Republicans!!! were the saviors of Medicare. Because we were stupidly offering grand bargains which could be interpreted as hurting them. Even though, in the real world, Republicans burn to destroy Medicare.

        You're ire is misplaced. Ask why our own Party is doing everything it can to help make the Republicans look like they are on the little guys side; while we do the opposite. Think "chained-CPI." Think "the legislation Democrats proposed as shown in this diary."


        If Republicans said every 3rd person named "Smith" should hang, we'd bargain them to every 7th. Then we'll see apologia written praising this most pragmatic compromise. There's our losing formula.

        by Jim P on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:13:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That really doesn't explain why Republicans (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ericlewis0, I love OCD

          should be couched in defensive excuses.

          If the goal is to prevent a repeat of 2010, when as you say, Republicans scared people into thinking they were the saviors, then I don't see how a broadbrush criticism of  Democrats about a law they worked hard to pass in the face of Republican opposition, helps. I take issue with the claim that there is anything good about Republican criticism of Dodd-Frank when their primary goal is to dismantle.

          •  It really doesn't matter. (13+ / 0-)

            It's trivial. Pretty much irrelevant. The American people would throw both Parties to the sharks if they could at this point,  but our electoral game is rigged to leave us unable to do that.

            So...
            Is our Party delivering for the People or not? That's all that matters.

            The Insider Baseball Game of Optics is pure bullshit, and the only way it does matter is what OUR PARTY is communicating to the public.

            Is our Party delivering for the People or not in the fields of Economics and defending the Safety Net? What are the American people seeing us do? What's your take on that? Yes or no?


            If Republicans said every 3rd person named "Smith" should hang, we'd bargain them to every 7th. Then we'll see apologia written praising this most pragmatic compromise. There's our losing formula.

            by Jim P on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:36:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It does matter (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              shrike, ericlewis0, I love OCD, scott5js

              You said so yourself. If you think that Republicans being successful at duping people doesn't matter, then 2010 is irrelevant. The point is that getting Democrats to do better doesn't require elevating Republicans unnecessarily. Bolstering their dubious positions serves no one. There goal is to dismantle Dodd-Frank. Claiming that their criticism of the bill is valid is bolstering a dubious position.

              •  Nope. (9+ / 0-)

                Did you read the article?

                Whatever passing reference is made to Republicans, this is what WE'RE doing.

                Stand for the people, stand for the safety-net, stand against the criminal banker class and we win elections hand over fist.

                Stand for pretending and extending the Criminal class, stand for cutting back social security, stand for hurting the voters, and OF COURSE the Republicans are going to make headway.

                So instead of worrying about trivial shit we can't control, why not simply take control?

                I dare you to answer the question:

                Is our Party delivering for the People or not in the fields of Economics and defending the Safety Net? What are the American people seeing us do? What's your take on that? Yes or no?


                If Republicans said every 3rd person named "Smith" should hang, we'd bargain them to every 7th. Then we'll see apologia written praising this most pragmatic compromise. There's our losing formula.

                by Jim P on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:49:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  A dare? (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Jim P, I love OCD, kefauver

                  Dodd-Frank, including the CFPB, Medicare is strengthened, the Affordable Care Act are all for the people.

                  Are these all perfect? No. There is much more to be done.

                  One of the best ways to attack inequality is raising the minimum wage.

                  House Republicans Unanimously Vote Down Minimum Wage Hike
                  http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/...

                  The Senate Budget Committee just passed legislation to increase minimum wage:

                  The Senate Budget Committee on Thursday approved a plan that would reduce the deficit by $1.85 trillion over 10 years through a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. The panel added amendments by Sen. Bernie Sanders to end offshore tax havens and raise the minimum wage. In the House, meanwhile, a budget was proposed that would make drastic spending cuts without asking the wealthy and profitable corporations to contribute to deficit reduction. “Disastrous” and “insane” were two words Sanders used to describe what House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan proposed. Earlier in the week, Sanders chaired a Wednesday hearing on a claims backlog at the VA. And on Tuesday he introduced a constitutional amendment that would undo Citizens United, the notorious Supreme Court ruling that voided campaign finance regulations.

                  Budget Committee One Sanders amendment approved by the committee would go after tax-dodging corporations. A second one supports increasing the minimum wage. Both Sanders amendments were approved by votes of 12 to 10. House Republicans, meanwhile, offered what Sanders called a “disastrous” budget that would cut programs for working families. “It is insane to simply talk about ‘cut, cut, cut’ when you’ve got the wealthiest people and large corporations doing phenomenally well and paying lower effective tax rates than they should,” Sanders said Thursday on The Cycle on MSNBC. Watch the MSNBC interview

                  Tax Havens The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday that its own analysis of 60 big U.S. companies found that they parked $166 billion offshore last year. Sanders has called for closing those tax loopholes to help bring down deficits. “At a time when we have a $16.6 trillion national debt; at a time when roughly one-quarter of the largest corporations in America are paying no federal income taxes; and at a time when corporate profits are at an all-time high, it is past time for corporate America to contribute significantly to deficit reduction,” he said.

                  http://www.sanders.senate.gov/...

                  Speaking of Elizabeth Warren:

                  Warren politely SCHOOLS businessman at Senate hearing who tries to explain wage economics to her
                  http://www.dailykos.com/...

                  There was also a debate about the impact of the recent tax deal, but simple arithmetic shows the reality.

                  Pre Bush tax cuts: lowest tax bracket 15 percent and top tax bracket 39.6 percent.
                   Bush tax cuts: lowest tax bracket 10 percent and top tax bracket 35 percent.
                  President Obama's tax deal, lowest rate 10 percent, top rate 39.6 percent.

                  Do the math and it will show that the gap between someone earning $50,000 and someone earning $500,000 closed to more than what it was in the 1990s. Add the health care law tax and the gap closes even more.

                  <...>

                  Perhaps the best prism through which to see the Democrats’ gains is inequality. In the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama said that his top priority as president would be to “create bottom-up economic growth” and reduce inequality...In the 2009 stimulus, he insisted on making tax credits “fully refundable,” so that even people who did not make enough to pay much federal tax would benefit. The 2010 health care law overhaul was probably the biggest attack on inequality since it began rising in the 1970s, increasing taxes on businesses and the rich to pay for health insurance largely for the middle class.

                  http://www.nytimes.com/...

                  Obama and Redistribution

                  Some notes for myself: how much impact have Obama’s policies actually had on current and prospective inequality?

                  The main policies to consider are PPACA (the health reform) and ATRA (the fiscal cliff deal with its associated tax rise).

                  I’m not a fan of the Tax Foundation’s work, but their analysis of the distributional effects of Obamacare looks about right: significant benefits to the bottom half of the income distribution, paid for largely by taxes on the top few percent (the Medicare surcharge and the extra tax on investment income). The Tax Policy Center — whose work I do trust — has the Act reducing the after-tax income of the top 1 percent by 1.8 percent, the top 0.1 percent by 2.5 percent.

                  Meanwhile, ATRA raises taxes relative to a continuation of the Bush high-end tax cuts: after-tax income down 4.5 percent for the 1-percenters, 6.2 percent for the top 0.1 percent.

                  Putting this together, we have a roughly 6 percent hit to the 1 percent, around 9 to the superelite. That’s only a partial rollback of these groups’ huge gains since 1980, but it’s not trivial.

                  http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/...

                  These are steps in the right direction, but again, there is much more to be done.

                  I hope that answers your question.

                  •  Thanks for trying, but you missed the (5+ / 0-)

                    obvious I hate to tell you again.

                    We started with umbrage that the insulting "Democrat" was quoted in an article which was about Democratic Party members proposing legislation which will protect criminal bankers, while increasing risk and difficulty to every depositor in the United States, and ultimately, all the tax-payers.

                    There was also the passing reference to Republican's pledges against bailouts and a challenge to Sen. Warren. (Which she will more than rise to meet, I'm certain.)

                    The idea, I take it, being that if someone reads a stupid insult, and a statement of publicly-taken Republican positions... that knowledge alone will hurt Democratic Party electoral chances.

                    But that's absurd. And in context of the actual policies being promoted by Democratic Leadership, it's like looking at a twig on the water while the Titanic is racing at your head.

                    President Obama has repeatedly offered to cut Social Security as part of a deal around the deficit and the debt. But you know, and I know, and I don't see how it's possible President Obama doesn't know that Social Security being in trouble, being connected to debt/deficit is...

                    a Republican lie. The President offers to negotiate based on a Republican lie.

                    It's a Republican lie. And he, and Pelosi, and Reid, actually validate a Republican lie.

                    Now, since there are tens of millions of voters now dependent, or soon to be, on Social Security -- including elderly, disabled and disabled Vets, and various other pockets of humanity --

                    ...which "promotion" of Republicanism do you judge the more dangerous to our Party, and the more worthy of your concern?

                    That a blogger seen by, what? 10,000? -- wrote a trivial insult and pointed to Republican rhetoric against banks?

                    Or,

                    That our President repeats Republican lies as if they were true, while putting a thumb in the eye of tens of millions of voters -- voters who by all rights should be 100% Democratic -- for no sound reason whatsoever; neither economic (it's actually BAD for the economy); nor political advantage; nor for any real service to the nation in its real needs?

                    Remember. You are not an inside player in DC politics. You're just a citizen. Our job is not to defend them; their job is to meet our necessities. DC politics is about doing everything possible to deaden the will of the People, so counting the points on the scorecard... It's like this:

                    ACA. Hooray, better than a stick in the eye. Original complaint about healthcare? Insurance unaffordable; Illness leading to bankruptcy; lousy health care outcomes compared to the rest of the monied world.

                    ACA. Hooray. What happens to the original complaints? Insurance has risen and will continue to rise. More and more people can't afford the deductibles, and seek care when something small grows to crises. People will still go bankrupt from illness. And we didn't even mention the lousiest health care in the world's top 40 nations.

                    But that's what the corrupt DC game is about. Throw them a bone, tell them anything that actually works is unrealistic, and blow smoke up their ass with statistics.

                    Gallup just said 72% of the American people want stimulus to create Jobs. 72% want Federal Job Creation

                    On the other hand, with the safety-net, we've seen 2/3 of the voters, even more in some polls, say "don't touch Social Security; don't touch Medicare."

                    And you know, everybody knows, that Jobs Jobs Jobs is the one way to fix deficit/debt issues.

                    Well, the President created a Jobs and Competitiveness Commission. And then picked a pace-setter in exporting US jobs to head it. Which Commission met four times the first year, none the second, as is now disbanded.

                    Why aren't you worried that our Leadership is a) affirming lies told by Republicans, b) accepting Republican priorities as our own, c) hurting likely Democratic voters, while d) ignoring that the Public demands jobs at all costs, nor focusing that demand, e) while offering the very things the voters want preserved up for sacrifice?

                    Don't you think that will affect elections more than someone called you a name?

                    If "Democratic Leaders Pushing Republican Priorities Over and Over" equals 1000, being called a name and a friendly reference to a claimed Republican position, is about .0001 on any sane scale, as far as threats go.

                     


                    If Republicans said every 3rd person named "Smith" should hang, we'd bargain them to every 7th. Then we'll see apologia written praising this most pragmatic compromise. There's our losing formula.

                    by Jim P on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:39:03 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Thanks JimP - speaking truth about Grand Bargain (0+ / 0-)

                      a nation of shoppers should love a bargain

                      wow

                      kick the new deal down the curb

                      wow

                      republicans been trying since law passed to do this, but it takes a "democrat" to pull off the deed

                      wow

                      and using the shock doctrine (check it on wiki if you don't know about it) and a shoppers wonder word, Grand Bargain, you can sell anything to our country of shoppers

      •  That's a subjective and incorrect read of... (26+ / 0-)

        ...Yves' sentiments. She's, perhaps, THE biggest (at least one of the strongest, for sure) supporter of the Occupy movement of all economic/financial bloggers.

        And, to be in denial of the reality that there's a large block of corporatocratic/neoliberal Dems in the House (and Senate) is exactly that.

        As someone noted in these pages, over the past day or two: the political party that gets the credit for taking the lead in the struggle to break-up up the TBTFs and fight Wall Street (hopefully, that party's one and the same), will win the next Presidential election.

        Unfortunately, to be unsure that it will be the Democratic Party (and, I'm being quite kind when I say this) that's at the forefront of this effort, is a sad statement to make.

        My "bet" is that, when it gets down to it, it's a propaganda trip, because BOTH parties are owned lock, stock and barrel by Wall Street.

        Actually, there are four business gangs that control the government (and just about everything else) in this country.

        The more we talk about that, without respect to party affiliation, the better, IMHO!

        "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

        by bobswern on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:24:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But only one party passed Dodd-Frank. nt (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shrike, kefauver, scott5js
          •  Correction: (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            terabytes, kefauver, scott5js

            No House Republicans voted for the bill, but Republican votes were needed in the Senate, and look what that led to.

            After Watering Down Financial Reform, Ex-Senator Scott Brown Joins Goldman Sachs’ Lobbying Firm
            http://thinkprogress.org/...

            •  The greater reality is that it's usually much... (10+ / 0-)

              ...more important, when it comes to ANY legislation, in terms of what happens to it after it's "passed." And, then how well-funded the regulatory arms of our government are when it comes to enforcing those laws. When all that's said and done, we need only look at the actions of AG Holder and the DoJ's (former) criminal division chief Breuer to underscore a greater, inconvenient reality. Their negligence inaction occurred with Democratic oversight/rule, too. And, at the end of the day (and reiterating what I state at the beginning of this comment), we can pass all the laws and legislation we wish.  What matters AFTER that is what really matters.

              "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

              by bobswern on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:11:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  How does this help? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kefauver, scott5js

                When you start by saying Democrats and Republicans are equal, how are you helping?  This reminds me of "Kill The Bill".  

                Democrats passed Dodd-Frank, and even it's sponsors were amazed that they got more than they hoped for, given the opposition.  Since then, all I read here is that it's not enough, it's not harsh enough, the banksters weren't jailed.

                This is a pivot for the Republicans, a way to make it look like they give a shit about TBTF, and we're missing the fact that Dodd-Frank puts the bailout problem in the hands of the banks, not the taxpayers.

                Let them be too big to fail, let them make the same stupid mistakes again, and then watch them break up those big banks themselves after it costs THEM billions to clean their own litter box.  

                In the meantime, could we possibly avoid helping the Republicans gut the best regulations since FDR?  Just once, could we stop spreading the gloom and doom and start working on making the initial reforms stronger?  

                 

                I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

                by I love OCD on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 06:45:12 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  And Dodd-Frank has a TBTF liquidation trigger (3+ / 0-)

            when capital falls below a safe level.

            Barney Frank (a real progressive) calls it a bank Death Panel.

            That is the goal, right?  Death to the TBTFs!

            "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

            by shrike on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:50:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Given the enormity of the issue, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ozsea1, bobswern

          That subjective and incorrect reading of Yves Smith represents either a piss poor sense of proportion or a phony excuse to avoid the central issue.

          Cutting Social Security will end my support for the Democratic Party.

          by MrJayTee on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:46:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Nothing about the entire rest of (19+ / 0-)

      the diary? Just the one sentence struck you? Quick, without looking again: from which party come the people proposing these odious measures?

      Do you think the servicing of the Bankster Class is harming the nation and the Party?

      Or is all this fine?


      If Republicans said every 3rd person named "Smith" should hang, we'd bargain them to every 7th. Then we'll see apologia written praising this most pragmatic compromise. There's our losing formula.

      by Jim P on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:03:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Eric, that's not a diss, it's a call-out. (21+ / 0-)

      Who knows, maybe Warren will read this diary and do something proactive.  I wouldn't put it past her.

      Smith, however, leaves out the most apropos diss of a more prominent Dem in this situation, whose vigorous actions a decade ago are responsible for putting us in this precarious situation: Joe Biden, the prime sponsor and instigator of the '05 bankruptcy reform act that allows these casinos to place their gambling operations with the FDIC ahead of our meager savings deposits.  

      If you want this site to quite blaming Dems for their wrongdoing, you should come right out and say it, btw.  Clinton pushed through the repeal of Glass Stegall and the Commodities Futures Modernization Act for crissake.

      "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi // Question: "succeed" at what?

      by nailbender on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:20:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Democrats suck" is the central theme of most (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lying eyes, kefauver, scott5js

      bobswern diaries - that is why he put it in the headline.

      Go over to NC and see the seething hatred of President Obama and tell me that it is not mirrored in these diaries.

      "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

      by shrike on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:25:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If you think the fight for "better Democrats" is (9+ / 0-)

        over and the ones we have now are above criticism, you should spend your time elsewhere.

        The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

        by Wolf10 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:34:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Good lord that's not true at all (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BradyB, basquebob

        Your ignorance is astounding.

      •  Nah, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        snoopydawg, Don midwest

        you miss the point of his diaries. It is not "Democrats suck" but  the water carriers of the oligarchs suck regardless of party affiliation. Too bad that some of those water carriers happen to be Democrats. Being a Democrat does not exempt you from criticism and the path to more and better Democrats goes through calling out the bad Democrats such as Senator Hagan the sponsor of S474. We also happen to be in a Democratic blog and if we want to improve the Democratic party we need to talk about Democrats. Talking about Republicans all the time does little to make us better Democrats. It might be enjoyable but not conducive to self improvement.

        I live in NC and worked for the Obama campaign in 2008 and 2012 and canvased for Hagan in 2008 as part of my work for the Obama campaign and independently of the Obama campaign.

        Your characterization that Bobswern hates Obama just as many do in NC is cringe worthy if not hr worthy. For one, you are basically calling Bobswern a racist since I know for a fact, I deal with them on a daily basis, that a lot of the Obama haters down here in NC are racists, period. Is that the comparison you are making? Also, last time I checked Obama won NC in 2008 and got 48.4% of the vote vs Romney's 50.4%, so your characterization of NC being some huge well of haters is way off the mark. Sure we have plenty of them but not even close to a majority of them unless you asume that everyone that votes Republican is a hater. Sure a lot of them are, but more than not are misguided and vote against their self-interests mainly out of ignorance, but haters? All or a majority of them? A bridge too far.

        "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -John F. Kennedy

        by basquebob on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:42:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (133)
  • Community (55)
  • Baltimore (45)
  • Bernie Sanders (36)
  • Civil Rights (35)
  • Culture (26)
  • Freddie Gray (21)
  • Elections (20)
  • Racism (20)
  • Law (20)
  • Education (20)
  • Hillary Clinton (19)
  • Economy (18)
  • Labor (17)
  • Politics (16)
  • Rescued (16)
  • Media (15)
  • Texas (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Barack Obama (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site