It's the Guns, Stupid

It's the Guns, Stupid

There are 103293 comments on the Truthdig story from Apr 20, 2007, titled It's the Guns, Stupid. In it, Truthdig reports that:

“And that's the end of the issue”

Why do we have the same futile argument every time there is a mass killing? Advocates of gun control try to open a discussion about whether more reasonable weapons statutes might reduce the number of violent ... via Truthdig

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Truthdig.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#106546 May 3, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't even get me started on how the fourteenth amendment failed to protect the native Indian and their rights to be recognised as American citizens even if they left their tribes. It appears in America not all men are created equal under the law, especially if you were not white, eh!
American Indians are a sovereign nation unto themselves. The duty of the United States is to abide by the treaties made with the native American peoples.(Of which, every single one has been violated). Which provides further evidence that our government is TOTALLY CORRUPT, and should be summarily charged with treason. Which the 14th amendment amply provides punishment for.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#106547 May 3, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>we were at war with the Native Indians too here in US which they would be considered the same as Terrorist with todays standard.
The Native Americans were defending their own land and rights. They had every right to war against a government that failed to abide by ANY of the treaties it had made. The Law of Nature/Nations makes that fact abundantly clear.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#106548 May 3, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Negative. The Congressional records made it very plain that the intent was to ENFORCE the rights specified in the original Bill of Rights on all the states.
It was the u.s.s.c. that CONSPIRED against; not only the 14th amendment. But, the original Bill of Rights as well. Th last few legal decisions I've posted prove that assertion most conclusively.
it didn't do it that is why we did not have a 2nd amendment right under the US Constitution here in the US until 2010 when the SCOTUS said we did with use of the Incorporation clause of the 14th which the SCOTUS had to do because the 14th amendment striped the US Constitution Bill of Rights and why for years they said and were right to say that the 2nd amendment does not pertain to the states because of what the 14th amendment did.

Amendment II

Right to keep and bear arms

This right has been incorporated against the states.

See McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#106549 May 3, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The Native Americans were defending their own land and rights. They had every right to war against a government that failed to abide by ANY of the treaties it had made. The Law of Nature/Nations makes that fact abundantly clear.
Indians sided with the British and the French too which supplied them

American Indian Wars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#106550 May 3, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't even get me started on how the fourteenth amendment failed to protect the native Indian and their rights to be recognised as American citizens even if they left their tribes. It appears in America not all men are created equal under the law, especially if you were not white, eh!
List of massacres of Indigenous Australians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacre...

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#106551 May 3, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>it didn't do it that is why we did not have a 2nd amendment right under the US Constitution here in the US until 2010 when the SCOTUS said we did with use of the Incorporation clause of the 14th which the SCOTUS had to do because the 14th amendment striped the US Constitution Bill of Rights and why for years they said and were right to say that the 2nd amendment does not pertain to the states because of what the 14th amendment did.
Amendment II
Right to keep and bear arms
This right has been incorporated against the states.
See McDonald v. Chicago (2010).
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...
NEGATIVE.

"...In addition to the original rights secured to him in the first article of amendments,[Fourteenth Amendment] he had secured the free exercise of his religious belief, and freedom of speech and the press. Then he had secured to him the right to keep and bear arms in his defense. Then, after that, his home was secured in time of peace from the presence of a soldier; and,still further, sir, his house, his papers, and his effects were protected against unreasonable seizure...."

"Though originally the first ten Amendments were adopted as limitations on Federal power, yet in so far as they secure and recognize fundamental rights-common law rights-of the man, they make them privileges and immunities of the man as citizen of the United States, and cannot now be abridged by a State under the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, while the ten Amendments, as limitations on power, only apply to the Federal government, and not to the States, yet in so far as they declare or recognize rights of persons, these rights are theirs, as citizens of the United States, and the Fourteenth Amendment as to such rights limits state power, as the ten Amendments had limited Federal power..."

- Adamson v. People Of State Of California, U.S. Supreme Court,(Justice Black, Douglas and Swayne in Dissent), June 23, 1947.

Justice Black goes into GREAT detail concerning the original Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment. The original 10 amendments WERE intended to be applied against BOTH the state and the federal governments. This is made clear by Madison, Wilson, and quite a few other. To Wit:

Preamble to the Bill of Rights:

"The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further DECLARATORY and RESTRICTIVE clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;

"Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, TO BE VALID TO >>>ALL<<< INTENTS AND PURPOSES AS PART OF THE SAID CONSTITUTION, namely:..."

More to follow...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#106552 May 3, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
Case No 14,897
UNITED STATES v. CBUIKSHANK et al.
[1 Woods 308; 1 13 Am. Law Reg.(N.S) 630.]
Circuit Court. D. Louisiana. April Term, 1874.=
Civil Rights Bill--Indictment for Violation
--FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH Amendments to
Constitution--Right to Vote-- Injuries to Negroes--How Cognizable.
"...The first count is for a conspiracy to interfere with the right to "peaceably assemble together with each other, and with other citizens, for a peaceable and lawful purpose." This right Is guarantied in the first amendment to the constitution, which declares that "congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Does this disaffirmance of the power of congress to prevent the assembling of the people amount to an affirmative power to punish individuals for disturbing assemblies? This would be a strange inference. That is the prerogative of the states. It belongs to the preservation of the public peace and the fundamental rights of the people. The people of the states do not ask congress to protect the right, but demand that it shall not interfere with it. Has anything since occurred to give congress legislative power over the subject matter? The 14th amendment declares that no state shall by law abridge the privileges or Immunities of citizens of the United States. Grant that this prohibition now prevents the states from Interfering with the right to assemble, as being one of such privileges and immunities, still does it give congress power to legislate over the subject? Power to enforce the amendment is all that Is given to congress. If the amendment Is not violated, it has no power over the subject.
"The second count, which is for a conspiracy to interfere with certain citizens in their right to bear arms is open to the same criticism as the first...."
[NOTE. The order arresting the in conformity with the above opinion of Mr Justice Bradley was affirmed by the supreme court where it was carried on writ of error and certificate of division. 92 U.S. 542.]
http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/2013/05/a...
Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#106553 May 3, 2013
U.S. Constitution:

Article. VI.

"...This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding...."

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Thus it is made QUITE CLEAR the Bill of Rights applied against the states right from the start. The Usurpreme kourt committed treason almost fro the very start. And have spent decades conspiring to continue the treason.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#106554 May 3, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text> Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...
United States v. Cruikshank

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) was an important United States Supreme Court decision in United States constitutional law, one of the earliest to deal with the application of the Bill of Rights to state governments following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled on a range of issues and found the indictment faulty. It overturned the convictions of two defendants in the case. The Court did not incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states and found that the First Amendment right to assembly "was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens" and that the Second Amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."

Although the Enforcement Act had been designed primarily to allow Federal enforcement and prosecution of actions of the Ku Klux Klan and other secret vigilante groups in preventing blacks from voting and murdering them, Cruikshank held the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses applied only to state action, and not to actions of individuals: "The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v....

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#106555 May 3, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Indians sided with the British and the French too which supplied them
American Indian Wars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_...
They were entitled to turn to whatever source necessary in order to maintain their just rights.

Are you attempting to defend the reckless slaughter committed by our government? Due in large part to the fact that they failed to live up to the treaties made by them? If so, what is your defense of slavery? When the Declaration made it PLAIN:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...."

Was that not a hypocritical statement, considering slavery was still in effect? Using those words to gain their own freedom. While DENYING that VERY SAME RIGHT to the people that were enslaved?

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#106556 May 3, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text> Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...
Am I correct in assuming that you agree with that tyrannical usurpation? That that was the 'correct' opinion of the court?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#106557 May 3, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
U.S. Constitution:
Article. VI.
"...This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding...."
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Thus it is made QUITE CLEAR the Bill of Rights applied against the states right from the start. The Usurpreme kourt committed treason almost fro the very start. And have spent decades conspiring to continue the treason.
Prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#106558 May 3, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>
United States v. Cruikshank
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) was an important United States Supreme Court decision in United States constitutional law, one of the earliest to deal with the application of the Bill of Rights to state governments following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled on a range of issues and found the indictment faulty. It overturned the convictions of two defendants in the case. The Court did not incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states and found that the First Amendment right to assembly "was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens" and that the Second Amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."
Although the Enforcement Act had been designed primarily to allow Federal enforcement and prosecution of actions of the Ku Klux Klan and other secret vigilante groups in preventing blacks from voting and murdering them, Cruikshank held the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses applied only to state action, and not to actions of individuals: "The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v....
REALLY?

Case No 14,897

UNITED STATES v. CBUIKSHANK et al.
[1 Woods 308; 1 13 Am. Law Reg.(N.S) 630.]

Circuit Court. D. Louisiana. April Term, 1874.=

Civil Rights Bill--Indictment for Violation
--FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH Amendments to
Constitution--Right to Vote-- Injuries to Negroes--How Cognizable.

"[NOTE. The order arresting the in conformity with the above opinion of Mr Justice Bradley was affirmed by the supreme court where it was carried on writ of error and certificate of division. 92 U.S. 542.]"

How do you explain that foot note in the body of the case itself? That the supreme court first ruled that the decision was "in conformity". And then turned around and ruled it WASN'T?

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#106559 May 3, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...
And the EVIDENCE , fund in the body of the CONSTITUTION ITSELF, conclusively PROVES the court was OBVIOUSLY in ERROR.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#106560 May 3, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
They were entitled to turn to whatever source necessary in order to maintain their just rights.
Are you attempting to defend the reckless slaughter committed by our government? Due in large part to the fact that they failed to live up to the treaties made by them? If so, what is your defense of slavery? When the Declaration made it PLAIN:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...."
Was that not a hypocritical statement, considering slavery was still in effect? Using those words to gain their own freedom. While DENYING that VERY SAME RIGHT to the people that were enslaved?
it was war and the Indians fought with the French & British first and then the newly created US was fighting all three for control of the new world is my point which here in Indiana there was several battles fought.

List of battles fought in Indiana

This is an incomplete list of all military confrontations that have occurred within the boundaries of the modern U.S. State of Indiana since European contact. The French first entered Indiana c. 1670. The region was part of New France from 1679–1763, ruled by Great Britain from 1763–1783, and part of the United States of American 1783–present.

There have been several wars that have directly affected the region, including Beaver Wars (c 1590–1701), Queen Anne's War (1702–1713), King George's War (1744–1748), French and Indian War (1754–1763), American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), Northwest Indian War (1785–1795), Tecumseh's War (1811–1812), War of 1812 (1812–1814), and the American Civil War (1860–1865). Later wars, including World War I and World War II led to the death of tens of thousands of Hoosiers overseas, but the American Civil War was the last war in which an actual battle occurred within Indiana.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#106561 May 3, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
REALLY?
Case No 14,897
UNITED STATES v. CBUIKSHANK et al.
[1 Woods 308; 1 13 Am. Law Reg.(N.S) 630.]
Circuit Court. D. Louisiana. April Term, 1874.=
Civil Rights Bill--Indictment for Violation
--FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH Amendments to
Constitution--Right to Vote-- Injuries to Negroes--How Cognizable.
"[NOTE. The order arresting the in conformity with the above opinion of Mr Justice Bradley was affirmed by the supreme court where it was carried on writ of error and certificate of division. 92 U.S. 542.]"
How do you explain that foot note in the body of the case itself? That the supreme court first ruled that the decision was "in conformity". And then turned around and ruled it WASN'T?
Its all about the interpretation of the US constitution and who sets on the SCOTUS and their views of the US Constitution and why its critical on selecting justices.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#106562 May 3, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And the EVIDENCE , fund in the body of the CONSTITUTION ITSELF, conclusively PROVES the court was OBVIOUSLY in ERROR.
Its all about the interpretation of the US constitution and who sets on the SCOTUS and their views of the US Constitution and why its critical on selecting justices.
Needs NO interpretation

Mesa, AZ

#106563 May 3, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Its all about the interpretation of the US constitution and who sets on the SCOTUS and their views of the US Constitution and why its critical on selecting justices.
"It is a rule of law that, in order to ascertain the import of a contract, the evident intention of the parties, at the time of forming it, is principally to be regarded. Previous to the formation of this Constitution, there existed certain principles of the law of nature and nations, consecrated by time and experience, in conformity to which the Constitution was formed."--Mr. Elliot, Debate in U.S. House of Representatives, Oct. 25, 1803.(The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution),[Elliot's Debates, Volume 4]

"'It is not only the same in words, but the same in meaning, and delegates the same powers to the government, and reserves and secures the same rights and privileges to the citizen; and as long as it continues to exist in its present form, it speaks not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and intent with which it spoke when it came from the hands of its framers, and was voted on and adopted by the people of the United States. Any other rule of construction would abrogate the judicial character of this court, and make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion or passion of the day.'"--Mr. Chief Justice Taney in Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 426, 15 L. ed. 691, 709. As quoted by Mr. Justice Brewer deliver[ing] the opinion of the court, U.S. Supreme Court,[South Carolina v. US, 199 U.S. 437 (1905)]
Needs NO interpretation

Mesa, AZ

#106564 May 3, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Its all about the interpretation of the US constitution and who sets on the SCOTUS and their views of the US Constitution and why its critical on selecting justices.
"Those then who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered, in court as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only law.

"This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions ... It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath, which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

"That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions--a written Constitution--would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the Constitution."

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void."--Chief Justice Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S.(Cranch) 137, 174,176.]
Needs NO interpretation

Mesa, AZ

#106565 May 3, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Its all about the interpretation of the US constitution and who sets on the SCOTUS and their views of the US Constitution and why its critical on selecting justices.
“The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”--Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court Justice and Constitutional scholar,[Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833; Book III at 746,§ 1890)]

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Dear Trump Voters: The 1950's Aren't Coming Back 2 min Red Crosse 1,630
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 2 min Skin Head Water Park 27,260
News Why Hire More Border Patrol When Illegal Immigr... 3 min Putins Glock Holster 136
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 3 min russianrepukes 287,981
News Federal court tosses out racist Texas voter sup... 4 min Retribution 3
News Uncounted Kansas ballots fuel fears about Kris ... 6 min DP Cassie 10
News John Oliver blasts Trump on Charlottesville: 'D... 10 min Putins Glock Holster 59
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 28 min Well Well 1,583,758
News Clinton: My 'skin crawled' as Trump hovered on ... 35 min Red Crosse 35
News Monument madness a leftist cover to crumble Ame... 2 hr poi pounder 173
More from around the web