HINDSIGHT - WRITE SOMETHING WORTH READING ABOUT OR DO SOMETHING WORTH WRITING ABOUT
Tuesday, December 02, 2025
THE (BULL)DOZER
THE (BULL)DOZER
The fading Trump spent his bizarre cabinet meeting Tuesday fighting sleep, before waking with a sickening fury ...
 |
As I type this, the President of the United States is chairing a meeting of his busted cabinet that would have been impossible to believe just 10 years ago.
And a note: I had no intention of staying with this North Korea-like, state-run propaganda, but now that I’ve bumped into it, I find I can’t take my eyes off it.
It is a train wreck wrapped in a dumpster fire, and in a normal time and place would end this appalling presidency.
Who could watch even five minutes of this tragedy without knowing that it simply had to be cancelled? Who could watch a man who is so obviously rotting from the inside out, and not flag the absurdity and danger of it all?
Those questions are chiefly for you, corporate media. But more on you in a moment …
Whatever is happening inside this room right now, is not normal, and it certainly isn’t working.
The 142-year-old 79-year-old Donald Trump is adorned in a pink tie, and stuffed in a white shirt and dark jacket that clashes badly with his burnt-orange face and straw-colored wig he has puffed over his wrinkled head just so. And when does he decide that this is the preposterous costume he wants to wear on a given day? “Less combover, more fluff … A little less brown, and more white around the eyes … More orange in the cheeks, less around the chin … Hand me that pink tie …”
He looks absolutely ridiculous.
Now he is doing everything he can to stay awake, his head is bobbing up and down, side to side. He’s pawing at his orange face as he drifts off to the fairways of Mar-a-Lago. He’s not going to make it. It’s hard to tell if he skipped one of the drug cocktails he pounds throughout the day, or just had one too many in anticipation of his big meeting with his crooked staff.
While he fights sleep, his grotesque collection of anti-vaxxers, stone-cold bigots, crooks, and multi-millionaires and billionaires in his cabinet are showering him with praise for the stellar job he is doing heaping all his hate on the world, while stuffing his bottomless pockets with millions and millions in kickbacks and blood money.
One of them, the racist, puppy-shooting Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem, has just preposterously thanked him for keeping the hurricanes away from the United States this year.
This kind of absurd praise would normally get an affirmative rise from Sleepy Rider.
Not today.
No, today Trump is barely alive, and almost unresponsive to this firehose of putrid adulation that used to inject him with life.
I’m really not sure whether to laugh or cry at this theater of the completely absurd I am witnessing, but I’m pretty sure indifference can’t be a viable option.
A drunk is at the wheel and for some horrible reason nobody is taking away his keys ...
Now the ceaseless praise has finally stopped, and the media is semi-free to ask this wreck of a man, and the gathered assemblage of dangerous clowns, questions about the abomination they have just witnessed.
Except not one of these so-called journalists asks the most obvious question there is:
“Do you demand that these people ridiculously fawn over you like some tin-pot dictator, and shower you with this disgusting praise, or do they actually lower themselves into your trash can, and just stink up the entire place on their own?”
Instead, they ignore the fire that is burning out of control inside that room, and address a few of the myriad blazes that have been gleefully started by these arsonists outside the room.
But now Trump is finally rising to the bizarre occasion. He has been triggered by a press he has spent a lifetime both needing and hating.
Scratching the sleep from his puffy eyes, he is sitting up in full harrumph. You can almost see the hate pouring from his chapped, pursed lips. Even his chubby, little hands are doing that weird accordion thing, as he holds everything and everybody in contempt.
He has woken up in a bad mood.
He is attacking Somalis, and saying, “I don’t want them in our country.”
He’s doubling down, “We’re going to go the wrong way if we keep taking in garbage (like Somalis) into our country.”
He’s tripling down, calling Representative Ilhan Omar, Democrat of Minnesota, “garbage.”
He’s in full attack mode now. The bile is rising up out of him, as he relieves his pain by inflicting it on anything or anybody that comes across his short-circuiting mind:
“Countries were ripping us off for years, including allies. I won’t use the names. I won’t mention Japan. I will refuse to mention South Korea. I will not mention names.”
Of course, even when he is seeing red, and raging like a complete maniac, he never mentions names like Russia and Saudi Arabia in this context.
Such control …
Look, it’s sickening when he gets like this, but sicker yet, that nobody points it out. He’s crashing, and intent on making sure everybody else goes up in smoke.
We can’t go on like this.
Finally he addresses his obviously failing health, and never-ending “perfect” visits to the doctor as only he can:
“I took my physical. I got all As. Everything. But they (the doctors) said to me, ‘Would you like to take a cognitive test?’ So I said, ‘Is it hard?’ And they said, ‘Yes.’ So I said, ‘Well, I’m a very smart person. Who was the last president to take one?’ So they said, ‘No president has ever agreed to take one’ ... I aced it.”
Nobody said a word.
The demented voices inside the man’s fat, orange head are doing all the talking …
Double-Tap Gate: A Case Study in Gaslighting
Double-Tap Gate: A Case Study in Gaslighting
We’re all trapped in Trump’s fabricated world and need to pull ourselves up out of it.
 |
“Double-Tap Gate” is now consuming the White House and the Pentagon, and things are about to get even hotter. But if we’re not clear about the larger picture, we could miss an important opportunity to reframe what’s really going on.
Let’s set the scene. A damning report from the Washington Post on Friday suggested Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was responsible for an illegal “double tap,” or second strike, that killed two survivors of a U.S. military attack on their vessel. Sources with knowledge of Hegseth’s orders told the Post that Hegseth had given an order to “kill everybody,” referring to all persons on board an alleged drug smuggling vessel off the coast of Trinidad.
After an initial strike destroyed the vessel and killed 9 of the 11 passengers, the U.S. military, reportedly on orders from Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley, “double-tapped” by firing upon two survivors who were still clinging to the wreckage. This was all done, reportedly, to fulfill Hegseth’s initial command.
As I wrote yesterday, this double-tap was either a war crime (if we indeed are at war) or extrajudicial murder. The prohibition on firing upon shipwrecked crew is clear; it is even spelled out as an example of an illegal act in the Defense Department’s own Law of War Manual.
That means everyone in the chain of command is now a potential criminal defendant, and the careers, and maybe the very lives, of those involved are on the line. Such an illegal kill order is indeed a capital offense, should the perpetrators be convicted.
In response, the Trump White House has gone into full spin mode with rapidly shifting positions. Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell initially declared in a statement to the Post, “This entire narrative is completely false.” Then yesterday, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt admitted the second strike occurred after all, even while declaring it was legal when it was clearly not. Now Hegseth is attempting in a rather disgraceful way to shift blame away from himself and onto Bradley, as if the admiral somehow acted on his own in making the double-tap call, even as prior interviews have now surfaced in which Hegseth boasted that he “watched it all live.”
Congressional committees are calling for investigations and hearings. Trump is distancing himself and preparing to throw Hegseth under the bus. And Hegseth is, well, shit-posting memes of Franklin the Turtle attacking drug smugglers.
When things heat up as they have in this matter, it’s easy to get mired in the details and the back-and-forth fingerpointing. To prevent this, it’s useful to climb out of the zone they are flooding with vitriol, incomplete denials and misinformation and see a larger pattern at work. We can identify that clearly by treating Double-Tap Gate as a case study in gaslighting.
The very reason we are here at all is a false construct
If you feel a disquieting revulsion witnessing Karoline Leavitt spout talking points about killing “narco-terrorists,” your sensibilities don’t need adjusting. Anyone paying attention understands that the whole idea is nothing more than a cynical framing designed to create a false pretext for U.S. military action.
To see why, we need to deconstruct “narco-terrorism” as a concept. When we think of “terrorism,” it’s typically some kind of public act of violence, often in pursuit of a political or religious ideology, that is designed to sow fear in order to topple a state or change its behavior.
But “narco” drug traffickers aren’t trying to achieve anything except to maximize their own profits. They may deploy terror and violence against rival groups or local law enforcement to further this goal, but the cartels are not trying to topple the U.S. government or fundamentally change our society.
That’s why the idea that we need the full weight of the U.S. military to strike and kill “terrorists” who are allegedly smuggling drugs to our shores doesn’t sit right. What’s more, we are somehow actively targeting Venezuela, which isn’t even a significant source of truly dangerous drugs such as fentanyl to the U.S.
The real goal of this military build-up and imminent attack is something different. It could be to secure Venezuela’s vast oil reserves. It could be an attempt to flex our military power as a show of strength. Or it could be that the White House needs a scapegoat and a distraction from its many problems, including the Epstein files and rising consumer prices. Perhaps it’s a combination of multiple factors.
What our military build-up isn’t about is actually interdicting dangerous drugs in any meaningful way. Every time we hear the White House claim this, we have to remind ourselves that the entire premise is false.
We wind up arguing about illegalities within that false construct
A distressing thing happens once we are inside of this false narrative and we see something very bad—like a double-tap strike on shipwrecked crew—make headlines. Our public discourse shifts, understandably, to address the bad thing. But it now takes place entirely within this fantasyland the Trump White House has constructed.
As a result, we are left arguing about whether the double-tap killings were “war crimes” because the White House declared this to be a “non-international armed conflict” or “extrajudicial murders” because these sustained attacks, now numbering in the dozens with scores killed, are not actually backed by congressional approval.
Often left out: that we have no legitimate reason to be in the region at all, and whether the vessels carried drugs is irrelevant to the legality of deadly military force. Instead, the public is repeatedly subjected to the favored false narrative of the White House, namely that the strikes were part of a legitimate campaign to stop drugs from killing hundreds of thousands of Americans each year.
It bears repeating that cocaine—the only drug that does come out of Venezuela in any significant amount—does not kill hundreds of thousands of Americans each year. Moreover, the trafficking of cocaine is not a capital offense justifying the military killing of anyone even suspected of drug smuggling.
But the White House, especially more cunning advisors such as Stephen Miller, understands that the “war on drugs” is an open-ended gift for those who want to abuse executive or military power. So long as we are talking about stopping drugs, even in the context of an illegal double-tap attack, we won’t return anytime soon to the baseline question of whether the whole “narco-terrorism” campaign was fabricated to serve other political ends.
Their circular arguments keep us inside the false construct
The messaging from the White House in response to the report of the war crimes/murders has shifted rapidly over the past few days. But the centrality of the mission—i.e., to stop “narco terrorists”—has remained consistent.
In response to the Post’s reporting, Hegseth tweeted that the “fake news” is “delivering more fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting.” But rather than deny the deadly double-tap strike occurred, Hegseth defended it:
“As we’ve said from the beginning, and in every statement, these highly effective strikes are specifically intended to be ‘lethal, kinetic strikes.’ The declared intent is to stop lethal drugs, destroy narco-boats, and kill the narco-terrorists who are poisoning the American people. Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization.
Never mind that there is still no evidence that there were “lethal drugs” on board, that these may not have even been “narco-boats” at all given their passenger count to hull size ratio, or that killing alleged narco-terrorists for drug smuggling is neither legal nor justified. Simply calling the crew members part of a “Designated Terrorist Organization” does not give the U.S. military the right to kill them.
Even Fox News legal analyst Andy McCarthy saw through Hegseth’s flawed logic regarding the double-tap strike. As he pointed out in The National Review, “It cannot be a defense to say, as Hegseth does, that one has killed because one’s objective was ‘lethal, kinetic strikes.’”
Nor is it, by extension, a valid argument to claim they killed the narco-terrorists because, hey, they are narco-terrorists! The 11 people on the vessel (a number that suggests again they were transporting people, not drugs) posed no immediate threat and were committing no capital crime. Yet when asked what exact law the White House relied on to justify its double-tap strike on the two shipwrecked survivors, Leavitt claimed, astonishingly, that it was “self-defense.”
 |
This stretches the notion of national “self-defense” beyond all recognition. Generally speaking, for a nation to claim it justifiably responded to a threat in self-defense under international law, there must first be an armed attack, or imminent threat of one, necessitating action, and the response must be proportional to that threat. None of these conditions is met when we’re talking about two crew members clinging to the wreck of their vessel floating in the ocean.
Zooming out, Leavitt is really making the argument that the larger campaign to stop narco-terrorists somehow justified the killings. This is the same as what Hegseth argued: They killed drug smugglers because their objective was to kill drug smugglers. That objective, we must continue to insist, is invalid and illegal on its face.
Leavitt makes a disturbing logical leap that, because drug smuggling ultimately results in the deaths of Americans, our forces were within their rights to kill any and all drug smugglers in the region. In short, the military’s actions were justifiable because they are justified.
Circular reasoning appears to be a hallmark of Leavitt. When asked to square the fact that our own laws of armed conflict say you cannot fire upon survivors from a wrecked vessel, Leavitt responded only that the strike was conducted “in accordance with the law of armed conflict.”
 |
No further explanation or citation given. This is akin to being asked, “Why does A equal B?” and responding, “because A.”
Other examples abound
The pattern described above with respect to the illegal double-tap strike on “narco terrorists” happens in many other contexts with this White House. To review, their game is this:
1) creation of false construct “A,”
2) forcing us to confront bad behavior within “A,” until
3) we’re met repeatedly with arguments that reinforce “A.”
Take another favorite false narrative of the regime: alien crime gangs. The White House declared the Tren de Aragua gang to be an “invasion” that threatened our national security. Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act, giving the Department of Homeland Security the green light to summarily render any suspected gang members to CECOT prison in El Salvador.
Very bad behavior followed, including the mistaken deportations of innocent men like Andry Hernández Romero, who was lumped in due to his tattoos, and Kilmar Abrego GarcÃa, who was wrongfully deported due to “administrative error.” The regime’s go-to talking point in its own defense? That it was protecting the American people from dangerous gang members. When the evidence wasn’t there, no worries! Trump could simply spread misinformation about MS-13 tattoos on Abrego GarcÃa’s knuckles.
The public was left arguing about whether Romero, Abrego GarcÃa and others were wrongfully rendered to CECOT because they were or were not gang members, or whether there was adequate due process afforded them. This left little room to attack the underlying premise that Tren de Aragua is not a real threat to U.S. national security, justifying invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. That narrative is so bogus that even the conservative Fifth Circuit ultimately did not buy it, but the damage to our public discourse was already done.
As a second example, take the White House’s unsupported assertion that government programs, grants and funds are rife with “fraud, waste and abuse” and “DEI.” It used those broad false claims to justify very bad behavior, including granting inexperienced DOGE staffers complete access to our government systems and the ability to unilaterally cancel billions in critical funding. The public was left arguing over whether a program was wasteful or fraudulent, or whether funding had a DEI element. There was little energy to focus on the fact that the White House never had the legal right to withhold appropriated funds to begin with, no matter what excuse or justification it offered.
Same goes for Trump’s tariffs. The White House spun the false narrative that tariffs would be paid by our foreign trading partners and would restore American manufacturing. Bad behavior followed, including high tariffs to punish Canada for its alleged failure to stop fentanyl from crossing our northern border. That drug flow from Canada, of course, wasn’t really a thing, and we went round in circles on it, as well as on Trump’s false claim that tariffs wouldn’t be borne by U.S. consumers. Once again, however, we were fighting battles within a false construct: Trump never had the power in the first place to impose his tariffs, but we all acted like he did anyway.
Enter the lawyers and courts…but it’s not enough
It has taken multiple lawsuits and long court battles, but at last, many of the most egregious false constructs have begun to fall away. Most courts have found, for example, that Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act against Tren de Aragua was not justifiable. Multiple courts have enjoined the White House from withholding appropriated funds as an illegal impoundment. And recently, a majority of justices on the Supreme Court appeared skeptical of Trump’s asserted power to use “national emergencies” to justify the imposition of broad tariffs, where the law he cites doesn’t even discuss the power to tariff.
But courts and the legal system are an imperfect and painfully slow way of chipping away at the false assertions and dangerous fantasies of the White House. By the time there’s a ruling, the public unfortunately is already well indoctrinated into the Trump regime’s favored narratives.
To stop this from happening far earlier, we would normally turn to two things that are in desperately short supply these days: a press that doesn’t accept the White House narratives at face value and a Congress willing to assert its power of oversight and impeachment leading to conviction and removal.
Given that neither of these is likely to materialize any time soon, we the public need to approach our national discourse with greater awareness of the false constructs that underlie it. We must begin by rejecting Trump’s premises. Venezuelan “narco-terrorism” doesn’t pose a national security threat. Tren de Aragua isn’t invading us. The White House can’t legally withhold funding appropriated by Congress. Trump doesn’t have the power to tariff anyone in any way he wants.
Perhaps we know these things, but they need to be repeated loudly and often because the media and our elected members in Congress aren’t doing their jobs. We need to address the hard fact that the elephant actually created the room we’re standing in with it. Failure to acknowledge this will only permit more national gaslighting, as we continue to go round and round in Trump’s upside-down world.
TRUMP AND KEGS-BREATH CONTINUE TO LIE AND PASS THE BUCK
In many ways, it was a cabinet meeting like any other. There was the typical preening by cabinet members to heap praise on Dear Leader Trump. There was Trump, fighting like just-fed baby to stay awake. And there were questions asked and not answered.
And, as has also become typical, there was a batshit crazy moment that SHOULD have Americans deeply, deeply concerned for the present and future of our democracy.
Sec. of Defense Pete Hegseth is under fire currently for a strike in September on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean that many – including from the right – are calling a war crime.
 |
On Sept 2, the US bombed a boat off the coast of Trinidad, and according to the Washington Post, Hegseth ordered everyone on board killed. The first strike left two survivors, clinging to what was left of the boat, and it’s alleged that Hegseth directed Admiral Frank Bradley to conduct a second strike to kill the survivors. Killing survivor non-combatants is, according to US and international law, illegal.
Here’s what Judge Andrew Napolitano said about it on Newsmax:
“[I]t gives me no pleasure to say what I’m about to say because I worked with Pete Hegseth for seven or eight years at Fox News. This is an act of a war crime, ordering survivors who the law requires be rescued instead to be murdered. There’s absolutely no legal basis for it. Everybody along the line who did it, from the Secretary of Defense to the admiral to the people who actually pulled the trigger should be prosecuted for a war crime for killing these two people.”
Here’s what National Review columnist and Fox News contributor Andrew McCarthy wrote in a scathing column:
“If this happened as described in the Post report, it was, at best, a war crime under federal law. I say ‘at best’ because, as regular readers know, I believe the attacks on these suspected drug boats — without congressional authorization, under circumstances in which the boat operators pose no military threat to the United States, and given that narcotics trafficking is defined in federal law as a crime rather than as terrorist activity, much less an act of war — are lawless and therefore that the killings are not legitimate under the law or armed conflict.”
And here’s what former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on CNN:
“I don’t think there’s any question that that’s a war crime, if it happened in that way.”
On Sunday, Trump was asked about the report and said, “Number one, I don’t know that that happened. I wouldn’t have wanted that, a second strike. The first strike was very lethal… but Pete said that [second strike] didn’t happen.”
In a statement, Hegseth also said no illegal strike took place.
But by Monday night, Hegseth was blaming Admiral Bradley, like a coward, tweeting:
“Let’s make one thing crystal clear:
Admiral Mitch Bradley is an American hero, a true professional, and has my 100% support. I stand by him and the combat decisions he has made — on the September 2 mission and all others since.
America is fortunate to have such men protecting us. When this @DeptofWar says we have the back of our warriors — we mean it.”
 |
Now, if you noticed that Hegseth took zero responsibility here and instead threw Bradley under the bus, you weren’t the only one. Here’s what Fox News’s Brit Hume posted:
Which brings us to today, and the wild cabinet meeting.
 |
Here’s, in part, what Trump had to say. It is nothing short of ASTONISHING.
“As far as the attack is concerned, I didn’t—you know, I still haven’t gotten a lot of information because I rely on Pete. But to me it was an attack. It wasn’t one strike, two strikes, three strikes. Somebody asked me a question about the second strike. I didn’t know about the second strike. I didn’t know anything about people. I wasn’t involved in it. I knew they took out a boat.
But I would say this: they had a strike. I hear the gentleman that was in charge of that is extraordinary. He’s an extraordinary person. I’ll let Pete speak about him. But Pete was satisfied. Pete didn’t know about a second attack having to do with two people, and I guess Pete would have to speak to it. I can say this: I want those boats taken out. And if we have to, we’ll attack on land also, just like we attack on sea.
So, to sum up…the President of the United States didn’t then and STILL doesn’t know about the details of a potentially illegal strike that happened THREE MONTHS AGO.
As he admits, the President doesn’t know about it because he relies on Pete Hegseth, his Secretary of Defense, to brief him, and apparently he has not.
AND the President is saying that Pete Hegseth, again, the Secretary of Defense, also didn’t know about a second attack.
That is either one of two things, neither of which are good: either the Trump administration is duplicitous or patently incompetent.
But then Hegseth takes the reins, and offers up a THIRD defense, after initially denying there was an illegal strike, and then blaming Adm. Bradley. And believe me, it begs more questions than answers.
“How do you treat Al-Qaeda and ISIS? Do you arrest them and pat them on the head and say, “Don’t do that again”? Or do you end the problem directly by taking a lethal kinetic approach?
And that’s the way President Trump has authorized the War Department to look at these cartels. And I wish everybody could be in the room watching our professionals, our professionals like Mitch Bradley, Admiral Mitch Bradley and others at JSOC and SOCOM and other commanders. The deliberative process, the detail, the rigor, the intel, the legal, the evidence-based way that we’re able to—with sources and methods that we can’t reveal here—make sure that every one of those drug boats is tied to a designated terrorist organization.
We know who’s on it, what they’re doing, what they’re carrying. All these white bales are not Christmas gifts from Santa. This is drugs running on four-motor fast boats or submarines that we’ve also struck. No one’s fishing on a submarine. And I have empowered them to make that call.”
Got that? They were deliberative, detailed, rigorous. They had the intel, they had the legal, they had sources and methods. They know who’s on the boats, they know EVERYTHING.
So therefore, we have to assume they knew what they were doing, and killed these two survivors intentionally, right?
Pete wasn’t done, though. Believe it or not, it gets WORSE.
“Now, the first couple of strikes, as you would—as any leader would want—you want to own that responsibility. So I said I’m gonna be the one to make the call after getting all the information and make sure it’s the right strike.
That was September 2nd. There’s a lot of intelligence that goes into building that case and understanding that—a lot of people providing information. I watched that first strike live. As you can imagine, at the Department of War, we got a lot of things to do. So I didn’t stick around for the hour and two hours, whatever, where all the sensitive site exploitation digitally occurs.”
He didn’t “STICK AROUND?” He had another meeting that took him away from bombing a narco-terrorist? We’re meant to believe that this work of eradicating narco-terrorism from our country is both so urgent and important that the Defense Department doesn’t even need due process to carry out operations, but ALSO not important enough for the Defense Sec. to STICK AROUND to watch it to completion??
There’s more.
“So I moved on to my next meeting. Couple hours later, I learned that that commander had made the—which he had the complete authority to do, and by the way, Admiral Bradley made the correct decision to ultimately sink the boat and eliminate the threat. He sunk the boat, sunk the boat, and eliminated the threat. And it was the right call. We have his back, and the American people are safer because narco-terrorists know you can’t bring drugs through the water and eventually on land, if necessary, to the American people. We will eliminate that threat, and we’re proud to do it.”
So he learned of the second strike hours later. But didn’t brief the president? He didn’t bring Trump the good news that they eliminated the threat? Bullshit.
Pete ended on a predictably indignant note, with the so-called “tough talk” of a guy who just threw his own Admiral under the bus:
“I did not personally see survivors, but I stand—because the thing was on fire. It was exploded and fire and smoke. You can’t see anything. You got digital. This is called the fog of war. This is what you and the press don’t understand.
You sit in your air-conditioned offices or up on Capitol Hill, and you nitpick, and you plant fake stories in the Washington Post about “kill everybody” phrases on anonymous sources, not based in anything, not based in any truth at all. And then you want to throw up really irresponsible terms about American heroes, about the judgment that they made.
I wrote a whole book on this topic because of what politicians and the press does to warfighters. President Trump has empowered commanders to do what is necessary, which is doing difficult things in the dead of night on behalf of the American people. We support them, and we will stop the poisoning of the American people.”
This is BANANAS. It’s no way to run a cabinet meeting, let alone the Defense Department. There are no positive spins on it. Either Hegseth authorized a potentially illegal strike, which would make him a war criminal, or he didn’t know one happened, and withheld that information from the President, which makes him an incompetent moron unfit for office. I’ll let him pick which he prefers.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)