The Bridge to Nowhere – Gibson’s shameful Lies – the documents & facts to prove the Truth

ABC’s Charles Gibson’s shameful lies & The bias of the Liberal Left Media – The truth about the Bridge to Nowhere and how it was funded.  

ABC’s Charles Gibson falsely accused Governor Palin of “Being for the Bridge to Nowhere before you were against the Bridge to Nowhere”. With Gibson’s large staff of researchers one would have to assume Gibson knew his accusation to be false.                                http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11594 

Thanks to ABC’s editing, Palin’s actual, verbatim, responses to this false accusation may never be heard. 

The following is a brief analysis of the facts, based on Congressional voting records and State Budget Documents.

The spending Proposal to fund the Bridge was submitted in 2005 to the US House, by US Rep Don Young, (R) from Alaska. The “Bridge” received funding that year, 2005,  while Palin was serving as Mayor of Wasilla. This “fact” can been confirmed by Congressional documents and in fact, has been confirmed by the independent consumer group, “Citizen’s Against Government Waste.”    http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11594    

The original “bill” funding the $223 Million “Bridge” (in fact 2 bridges were funded) was passed by the US House of Representatives, the US Senate and was signed by President Bush and became law in 2005. When the bill reached the US Senate, Senators Obama and Biden voted to fund the Bridge while Senator McCain did not. In 2005 Mayor Palin was not involved with any part of this process. In 2005 the Governor of Alaska was Frank Murkowski, the incumbent Republican Governor Mayor Palin later defeated.  http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11594 

In October, 2005, Senator Tom Colburn, (R) Oklahoma, offered an amendment to transfer $75 million from the ‘Bridge to Nowhere” to funding to rebuild New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. His amendment was defeated by a vote of 15-82.  Senators Biden and Obama voted with the Majority and against the amendment which would have decreased funding for the Bridge to Nowhere; Sen. McCain was not present for the vote.   http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11594 

With the completion of this vote in October 2005, formal Congressional opposition to the “Bridge to Nowhere” came to an end.

In November, 2005, Congress included language in the final version of the fiscal 2006 Transportation Appropriations Act that allowed the state of Alaska to either spend money on the two bridges or on other surface transportation projects. Frank Murkowski was still the Governor of Alaska. http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11594

Congress was attempting to create “cover” for the Congresspeople and Senators who voted to fund the “Bridge to Nowhere” by changing this language. Politicians, when questioned, could claim they didn’t vote to fund the “Bridge”, that question was left for the State of Alaska to answer. Congress tossed this fully approved, fully funded, “hot potato” to the Alaska Governor.

In October, 2006, Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski included $91 million for the Bridge to Nowhere (actually known as the Gravina Island Bridge) in his State budget submission for fiscal year 2007. This money, $91 million, would be financed directly by Alaskan Taxpayers and would be added to the $223 Million of Federal funds to build the Bridge. http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11594

As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin expressed a mixture of support and doubt about the bridge. Specifically, Candidate Palin questioned how the project would be funded. Candidate Palin supported the concept of a Bridge to Gravina Island and the improved transportation it would bring the residents of the Island, however, Candidate Palin also questioned whether the planned bridge was the “right answer” or “the right bridge”.                                                                                                                                                                                                  

Candidate Palin questioned whether the Bridge was fiscally responsible. 

Palin was elected Governor and took office in January 2007. Governor Palin submitted her first budget on January 17, 2007, two weeks into her Administration. The Governor’s budget contained no money for the Bridge. 

On July 17, 2007, the Associated Press reported that “The state of Alaska on Friday officially abandoned the ‘bridge to nowhere’ project that became a nationwide symbol of federal pork-barrel spending.”  Governor Palin said in a statement that Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer.”                                                     http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11594

According to the Committee for Citizen’s Against Government Waste, “Media reports that Congress killed the Bridge to Nowhere are not accurate,”. “The 2006 transportation appropriations bill allowed Alaska to decide whether or not to move forward.” The decision on whether to spend the money on the Bridge to Nowhere was left up to the Governor of Alaska. The money, which had already been appropriated, could have been spent on the “pork barrel bridge project” or on “freeways and infrastructure” items that are not considered “pork barrel”. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, “Governor Murkowski said yes; Governor Palin said no.”

 ABC’s Charles Gibson and the spiteful Media claim that Governor Palin, “took no action on the ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ until after Congress “killed the project’“, that claim is an outright lie. ABC’s Gibson and the Liberal Press are showing their bias when they make that false claim or falsely state that Governor Palin was,   “for the Bridge before you were against it“. Gibson knows his accusation is a falsehood – the voting records are a matter of public record. Congress never killed “the Bridge to Nowhere“, it was given full and final approval by Congress and provided with funding.                             http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11594

Congress presented Alaska with two choices “Build the Bridge” or “Kill the Bridge and use the money  elsewhere”. The criticism of “The Bridge to Nowhere” by Congress had ended long before Governor Palin made her choice. The “Bridge” was fully funded at the time she made her choice.                                                    

Governor Palin said NO to the “Bridge to Nowhere”. Governor Palin said “NO” two weeks into her Administration.  

In a closing shot at Governor Palin, Gibson noted that Congress sent approximately $200 million in earmark funds to Alaska this year. Those funds were requested by Alaska’s Congressional delegation, not Governor Palin. Gibson failed to mention that the 2008 total, $200 million, was $445 Million less than the amount sent by the last Congress. ($645 Million). The amount of earmarked money being sent to Alaska has been reduced by nearly 70% in two years. A 70% reduction in just two years. In addition to that amount, Governor Palin has cut  $500 million in wasteful spending from the Alaska State budget in just this past year.  http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11594  

Governor Palin has earned the right to call herself a Reformer and a Maverick. 

This is what ABC News had to say about the “Bridge” in September 2007.  The End of the Bridge to Nowhere

September 21, 2007 1:43 PM

Lindsey Ellerson

ABC News’ John Cochran reports: The Bridge to Nowhere is gone.  Not the victim of aging frames, bolts and joints.  No, this bridge has collapsed, even before it was built, after an onslaught of angry editorials, furious anti-pork citizens groups, and caustic jokes on late night TV.

First, that name. It was not accurate. If built, the bridge would have gone somewhere. It would have replaced the ferry that takes residents of Ketchikan, Alaska (population 8,000) to the local airport on Gravina Island. In 2005, Congress approved $223 million for construction.

In Washington, groups such as Taxpayers for Common Sense and Citizens Against Government Waste, rallied their troops to try to block the money. They said the island was home to far more deer than people (50). 

The bridge’s main sponsor in the Senate, Alaska Republican Ted Stevens, was outraged by any attempt to prevent his state from getting federal funds. In 2004, with the help of Stevens, his state got special projects worth $645 million. That was $984 for every Alaskan. By contrast, Congress handed out less than $3 to every Texan. And a Texan was, and still is, the President. 

But the barrage of publicity was too much for his fellow Republicans. Senator John McCain, R.-Ariz., cited the Bridge to Nowhere as a perfect example of wasteful spending.  Senator Tom Coburn R-Okla., a longtime foe of pork spending, tried to shift the money to rebuild an interstate highway damaged by Hurricane Katrina. 

Senator Stevens grew even more outraged: “I don’t kid people.  If the Senate decides to discriminate against our state…I will resign.”  He did not resign.

An uneasy compromise was reached.  Congress took away the money for the Gravina Island bridge and another Alaskan bridge which was almost as controversial.  Instead, Congress gave the money to the state with the understanding that it was not required to use the funds specifically for bridges.

Friday, the state of Alaska officially sank the Bridge to Nowhere. Governor Sarah Palin, also a Republican, said “Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport.”  “But,” she said, the bridge “is not the answer.”  Palin has told state transportation officials to look for the most “fiscally responsible” alternative.

A spokesman for Senator Stevens was not immediately available for comment.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/09/the-end-of-the-.html

 

 

The “Bush Doctrine” – Gibson’s “Gotcha Question” – Why Palin got it right / Why Gibson was wrong

HOW PALIN GOT IT RIGHT – WHY GIBSON WAS WRONG – HOW BIAS EFFECTS GIBSON’S JOURNALISM  

ABC News’ Charles Gibson is being credited with stumping Sarah Palin on the definition of the “Bush Doctrine”.

The now infamous exchange went like this;

Gibson, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”

Palin, “In what respect, Charlie?”

Gibson,The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?” A snappy response for a professional Journalist.

Palin, “His world view?”

Gibson, “No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war,” 

Palin, “I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation” 

Gibson, “The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us.”

Is that so Mr. Gibson? In 2001, Gibson defined the so called “Doctrine” as, a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/palins-definition-of-bush-doctrine-hits-the-gibson-mark/ . 

Excuse my nit-picking, but please note that Mr. Gibson first used the term “Bush Doctrine” 1 year prior to when he claimed it was “enunciated” in September 2002.If I were Palin, I would have wondered, “What the hell is he talking about”. Remember that Gibson and crew had edited out Palin’s objection to being misquoted earlier in the interview.

Gibson’s clarification was not, in fact, an attempt to help Palin. It was an attempt to disguise his real purpose – another politically motivated “gotcha” question, much like his earlier misquote of Palin which was edited for the ABC program.  

I guess Mr Gibson might have applauded Govern Palin’s answer, had she only said, “I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation, and Charlie, the Bush Doctrine gives him the ability to use pre-emptive strikes”.

WHAT THE HECK IS THE BUSH DOCTRINE – the short explanation.

The “Bush Doctrine” is not a Government Document. It is not a law passed by Congress. The “Bush Doctrine” is a creation of the Press. It is the name loosely associated with a series of comments made by President Bush. There have been other “Doctrines” associated with other Presidents. The “so called” Bush Doctrine borrows heavily from prior Doctrines. It is claimed, by Journalists, to borrow from the Monroe Doctrine (President Monroe), the Truman Doctrine (President Truman) and even from President Reagan and the what the Press described as the Reagan Doctrine. If one looks hard enough, there are even traces of the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Clinton and Carter Doctrines within what the Press now describes as the Bush Doctrine. http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue2/jv6n2a5.html . 

Apparently, when a President is elected a  Doctrine with their name is not far behind.

The term “Bush Doctrine” was first coined by columnist Charles Krauthammer three months before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and 5 months after Bush took office.  Krauthammer noted that the definition used by Gibson, “is not the one in common usage today.http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/palins-definition-of-bush-doctrine-hits-the-gibson-mark/

Richard Starr, managing editor of the Weekly Standard said, “Palin was well within bounds to have asked him to be more specific, the doctrine has no universally acknowledged single meaning.” http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/palins-definition-of-bush-doctrine-hits-the-gibson-mark/ 

When the term “Bush Doctrine” is used in common discussions (not to be confused with Liberal Media questions) it is usually referring to a speech that President Bush made on September 27, 2001 to a Joint Session of Congress. During that speech President Bush said,  

“We will direct every resource at our command–every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war–to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network…We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. Our nation has been put on notice. We’re not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans.” http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue2/jv6n2a5.html

Compare Bush’s speech to Palin’s answer, “I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation.”

The similarities between the speech and the answer are striking.

As Gibson has a large research staff and as he, himself, had used a nearly identical definition in 2001, what are we to conclude? The answer to that question is obvious. One need not consider the earlier editing of the interview to “remove” Palin’s objection to being mis-quoted on an earlier question to understand why Gibson and the liberal media have reacted as they have. Media Bias is the answer.

What is the BUSH DOCTRINE – The Longer Answer – Not the complete answer

As stated above the concepts that the Media named the “Bush Doctrine” are a combination of the “old” and the “new”. Certain Commentators note items were brought forward from the Monroe and Truman Doctrines, other Commentators note that the Bush Doctrine borrows and diverges from the Reagan and Clinton Doctrines.                       

http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue2/jv6n2a5.html , http://claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1218/article_detail.asp. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020715/falk  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/cron.html

The Bush Doctrine contains four seperate elements; Military, Economic, Political and Post War recovery. These elements have undergone many revisions.

The basic components of the Military Element have evolved to include; offensive operations, including preemptive war, against terrorists and their abetters—more specifically, against the regimes that had sponsored, encouraged, or merely tolerated any terrorist group. Afghanistan, the headquarters of al-Qaeda and its patron the Taliban, was the doctrine’s first target. The United States would “not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the worlds most dangerous weapons. Some believe that the Bush Doctrine represents a return to the first principles of American security strategy.  

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1218/article_detail.asp  http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.15845/pub_detail.asp

The Political Elements have evolved from past Doctrines or are related to a number of speeches and interviews conducted by President Bush. 

Commentators have attributed the following characteristics to the Policital Elements of the Bush Doctrine: The Doctrine is said to put the democratization of once totalitarian, authoritarian, and persistently tribal societies at the center of its objectives. Left to itself, Afghanistan after the Soviets’ withdrawal did not resume its former ways, at least not for long, and certainly did not evolve into a democracy. Instead, it succumbed to the Taliban’s peculiar Islamic totalitarianism. Nevertheless, the Bush Administration’s policy is not merely to expunge the totalitarians there and in Iraq, but to ensure that they never return by reconstructing their societies along democratic lines. Authoritarianism is no longer acceptable. That there is a, “”universality of democracy and human rights” (para-phrasing JFK), that the Doctrine recognized the difference between a “right to be free” with the “capacity to be free”. http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1218/article_detail.asp 

The Bush Doctrine was not an advocacy of a clash of civilizations or a Western crusade against Islam. http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue2/jv6n2a5.html

The Economic & Post War Recovery Elements. These elements are based on the premise that Democracy needs free markets to survive. Certain Commentators attribute an almost Marshall type plan (The Plan used to rebuild Europe, Japan and Germany after WW II) to the Bush Doctrine. This has become a matter of heated debate.  Afghanistan is often discussed in this regard. After Afghanistan defeated the Soviet invasion Liberals in this Country refused to fund moneys to help repair the infrastructure destroyed by the Soviets. In the devastation of post Soviet Afghanistan al-Queda took root.  

Conclusion:

At the risk of belabouring my point – It is ridiculous for ABC’s Gibson and the Liberal Media to act as if there is some sort of single document that defines the Bush Doctrine – that there is one clear answer to Gibson’s question, or that there was any answer that would more accurately describe the so called doctrine. After all the interview was only an hour long.

Gibson’s response to an honest request to elaborate on his question clearly demonstrates, at least to this writer, the game he was playing. Palin was not confused by his question, she simply didn’t know what the hell he was talking about.

Mr Gibson should be ashamed. 

COMPARE THIS INTERVIEW TO GIBSON 2007 INTERVIEW OF OBAMA HERE: https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/obamas-2007-interview-abcs-charlie-gibson-you-can-compare/  

 

ABC’s Gibson Interview of Palin – The Bush Doctrine Question – Gibson got it Wrong Again

Charles Krauthammer, the Columnist credited with coining the term “Bush Doctrine” says Gibson got it wrong again!

FOX News – September 12, 2008 – By Bill Samon

ABC News’ Charles Gibson, who is being credited with stumping Sarah Palin on the definition of the “Bush Doctrine,” has himself defined the nebulous phrase in a variety of ways, including one that mirrored Palin’s disputed explanation.

Gibson and his colleagues have been all over the map in defining the Bush Doctrine over the last seven years. In 2001, Gibson himself defined it as “a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.”

But when Palin tried to give a similar definition on Thursday, Gibson corrected her.

“I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation,” Palin said in her first interview since being nominated as the GOP’s vice presidential candidate.

Gibson countered: “The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us.”

Much has been made of the fact that Palin had to ask for clarification when Gibson inquired: “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”

“In what respect, Charlie?” the Alaska governor said.

“The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?” Gibson challenged.

“His world view?” Palin queried.

“No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war,” Gibson said.

That’s when Palin talked of ridding the world of “Islamic extremism,” prompting Gibson to define the Bush Doctrine instead as preemption.

The term “Bush Doctrine” was first coined by columnist Charles Krauthammer three months before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and has undergone profound changes as the war against terror has evolved.

There is no single meaning of the Bush Doctrine,” Krauthammer noted in a forthcoming column. “In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.”

Richard Starr, managing editor of the Weekly Standard, agreed.

Gibson should of course have said in the first place what he understood the Bush Doctrine to be–and specified that he was asking a question about preemption,” Starr observed. “Palin was well within bounds to have asked him to be more specific. Because, as it happens, the doctrine has no universally acknowledged single meaning.”

Starr pointed out that other ABC journalists, including George Stephanolous, George Will and the late Peter Jennings, have defined the Bush Doctrine on the air in a variety of ways.

Ben Smith of the Politico said the Bush Doctrine exchange was “not a great moment” for Palin. But he conceded that critics are unfairly “pouncing on Sarah Palin’s apparent unfamiliarity with the Bush Doctrine as last night’s gaffe.”

This isn’t an easy question,” Smith noted. “Commentators have offered a range of meanings for the phrase, from the principle that countries that harbor terrorists are responsible for their actions to broader statements about the spread of freedom.”

Starr added: “Preemptive war; American unilateralism; the overthrow of regimes that harbor and abet terrorists–all of these things and more have been described as the ‘Bush Doctrine.’ It was a bit of a sham on Gibson’s part to have pretended that there’s such a thing as ‘the’ Bush Doctrine, much less that it was enunciated in September 2002.”

Bill Sammon is Washington Deputy Managing Editor for FOX News.

BLOGGERS NOTE:This writer will post a BLOG tomorrow on this topic. To add to this confusion – their have actually been 2 separate “Bush Doctrines” – the second superseded the first – that version has undergone at least 4 revisions as noted above. The Bush doctrine contains 4 separate components  1). Military Action / Terrorism, 2) Political – Spreading Democracy, 3) Economic and 4) Post War Recovery and the roll of Democracies. The complicated Doctrine borrows from both the Truman Doctrine and the Monroe Doctrine. 

Gibson’s definition was not incorrect it was simply incomplete. Governor Palin’s request for more detail wasn’t surprising. The Governor’s response was equally correct but incomplete. A complete correct answer was impossible in the format – the interview was only 1 hour long.

FOX NEWS – ABC misquotes Palin in Gibson Interview. Tape edited. Palin objection edited out of TV broadcast. Written transcript proves point.

FOXNews – September 12, 2008                                                                              ABC MISREPRESENTS PALIN QUOTE IN HOLY WAR QUESTION

Millions of TV viewers who watched ABC News’ interview with Sarah Palin Thursday night never saw her take issue with a key question in which she was asked if she believes that the U.S. military effort in Iraq is “a task that is from God.”

The exchange between Palin and ABC’s Charlie Gibson, in which she questioned the accuracy of the quote attributed to her, was edited out of the television broadcast but included in official, unedited transcripts posted on ABC’s Web site, as well as in video posted on the Internet.

But in the version shown on television, a video clip of her original statement was inserted in place of her objection, giving a different impression of how Palin views the Iraq war.

In the interview, Gibson asked Palin: “You said recently in your old church, ‘Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.’ Are we fighting a Holy War?”

Palin’s response, which appears in the transcript but was edited out of the televised version, was:

“You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.”

“It’s exact words,” Gibson said.

But Gibson’s quote left out what Palin said before that:

“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

The edited televised version included a partial clip of that quote, but not the whole thing.

Gibson’s characterization of Palin’s words prompted a sharp rebuke from the McCain campaign on Thursday.

“Governor Palin’s full statement was VERY different” from the way Gibson characterized it,” read a statement circulated by McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.

Gibson cut the quote — where she was clearly asking for the church TO PRAY THAT IT IS a task from God, not asserting that it is a task from God.

Palin’s statement is an incredibly humble statement, a statement that this campaign stands by 100 percent, and a sentiment that any religious American will share,” Bounds wrote.

In the rest of the segment that aired, Palin told Gibson that she was referencing Abraham’s Lincoln’s words on how one should never presume to know God’s will. She said she does not presume to know God’s will and that she was only asking the audience to “pray that we are on God’s side.”

A promo posted on Yahoo! News Friday continued to misrepresent the exchange. It displays Palin’s image next to the words, “Iraq war a ‘holy war?’” implying that Palin — not Gibson — had called the War on Terror a holy war.

ABC News did not respond to requests for comment from FOXNews.com.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/abc-edits-out-palin-objection-to-holy-war-question/

COMPARE THIS INTERVIEW TO GIBSON’S INTERVIEW OF OBAMA IN 2007 HERE: https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/obamas-2007-interview-abcs-charlie-gibson-you-can-compare/ 

Video: Palin’s Response to ABC’s Charles Gibson question on God & War

To watch a preview of ABC’s Charles Gibson’s interview of Governor Palin: http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/

PLEASE NOTE THAT ABC News edited the Video of Palin’s address to a Congregation used on their WEB Site – the actual, unedited, video will be posted on this site tomorrow morning.  

UNEDITED PORTION OF PALIN ADDRESS TO CONGREGATION HERE: http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJM.XQfj2PqN2Y3Ayq_R_OmN3wV?p=Video+Sarah+Palin+God+and+War&fr=att-portal-s&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8

%d bloggers like this: