Wait: Jeb Bush now opposes a path to citizenship for illegals?

posted at 2:01 pm on March 4, 2013 by Allahpundit

Via Politico, I … was not expecting that. Neither was HuffPo, which points to this piece from last summer as proof that he was singing a different tune in 2012:

“You have to deal with this issue. You can’t ignore it, and so either a path to citizenship, which I would support–and that does put me probably out of the mainstream of most conservatives–or … a path… to residency of some kind,” he said during an interview last week with Charlie Rose on CBS.

Bush’s position diverges from that of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who oppposes amnesty, supports the use of e-verify to stop businesses from hiring illegal immigrants, and has promised to build a “high-tech” fence to help secure the border.

Too stale? Here’s what he said just six weeks ago:

The only alternatives to increased immigration are mounting debts or reduced social services. A practicable system of work-based immigration for both high-skilled and low-skilled immigrants—a system that will include a path to citizenship—will help us meet workforce needs, prevent exportation of jobs to foreign countries and protect against the exploitation of workers…

Immigrants replenish the American spirit. Most immigrants come here to secure a better life for themselves and their families. They cherish the values of hard work, faith, family, enterprise and patriotism that have made this country great. Meanwhile, many who were lucky enough to have been born here have grown complacent or even disdainful of these values. America’s immigration system should provide opportunities for people who share the country’s core values to become citizens, thereby strengthening the nation as have countless immigrants have before them.

Is there any obvious explanation for this reversal besides him watching Rubio roll out the Senate bipartisan bill, suddenly realizing that his 2016 niche on immigration had now been filled by a younger, more charismatic candidate, and then repositioning himself as moderately hawkish on this issue in order to gain a second look from conservatives? This shift has to be electorally-driven because there’s no way his new plan — allowing illegals to apply for permanent residency but not citizenship — will ever be accepted as policy. For Democrats, it’s a non-starter. The whole point of comprehensive reform on their end is to add illegals to the voter rolls sooner or later. Even if, by some strange twist of luck, Bush’s plan was implemented, immigration activists would get to work immediately on changing the law (legislatively or in court) so that illegals-turned-permanent-residents could eventually apply for citizenship. Meanwhile, even some immigration hawks like Mark Krikorian oppose relegating illegals to quasi-citizenship by allowing them to live and work here but never, ever to become citizens. Gingrich floated a plan like that in 2011 during the debates (the so-called “red-card plan,” which sounds a lot like what Bush has in mind); Krikorian wrote at the time that he actually preferred a straight-up amnesty to the politically charged purgatory of second-class status that a “red card” would grant. Besides, the whole point of the GOP’s big cave on immigration is to earn goodwill with Latino voters. What kind of goodwill would be earned by taking the position that sure, it’s fine for Mexicans to work, live, and pay taxes here, but voting is where America draws the line? If you’re going to cave in some quixotic attempt to turn a reliably blue constituency more red, then just cave already. Watch Lauer press him on that very point, in fact. He’s showing you exactly how the media would play this if Bush got his way.

So his plan is DOA in Congress, but he knows that already. The point here isn’t to float a viable compromise that might make comprehensive reform more salable to the base, it’s to give Bush a way to hit Rubio from the right in the primaries two years from now — which is ironic, because in another segment this morning, Bush told Lauer that Romney got in trouble with Latino voters by tacking a bit too far right on immigration in the debates in 2011. I assume he thinks he’s built up enough cred with Latinos over the years that backing away from a path to citizenship now won’t cost him many votes. We’ll see.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

FIFY The Republicans in Illinois are Democrat-lite. They are just as corrupt and insidious as the Dems.

Fallon on March 4, 2013 at 3:27 PM

No the issue is that the Rs insist on running unelectable candidates from downstate. Blago was impeached and Pat Quinn is a certifiable moron. But Republicans decided to nominate a socially conservative downstate Republican and lost by a handful of votes because the Ds ran disgraceful ads saying he wanted to deny women mammograms, etc. (Think that war on womenz Xs 100.)

To be elected in IL as a Republican you have to be socially moderate. The last successful, unindicted governor was Jim Edgar, a moderate Republican. Mark Kirk won a seat over Barry’s mob banking buddy because he is also a moderate. Those two are much, much better than Emmanuel.

Illinidiva on March 4, 2013 at 3:41 PM

Who exactly is a “far-right whack job”? Allen West? Louie Gohmert? Ted Cruz? I’m curious.

rrpjr on March 4, 2013 at 3:34 PM

The first two most definitely. I’m not sure about Cruz. I think that he is playing for the cameras. But he definitely doesn’t come off as likeable.

Illinidiva on March 4, 2013 at 3:43 PM

I also have a problem with the claims of citizenship for anchor babies.

Me too. One’s being born here, accidentally or deliberately, of parents being international visitors or illegal invaders, for the sole purpose of the gaining benefits of citizenship and chain immigration is wrong.

hawkeye54 on March 4, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Illinidiva on March 4, 2013 at 3:21 PM

So keep it there and stop trying to promote the same thing in the Republican Party. Why is it that Californians and other Blue state refugees like you keep trying to replicate the same stupid policies that destroyed where you live?

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 3:26 PM

I totally agree with this. Many of us who held our noses in November, will not do so again. And it’s way too soon to begin the conservative bashing; it’s old and tiring.

MustLoveBlogs on March 4, 2013 at 3:43 PM

I also have a problem with the claims of citizenship for anchor babies.

Me too. One’s being born here, accidentally or deliberately, of parents being international visitors or illegal invaders, for the sole purpose of the gaining benefits of citizenship and chain immigration is wrong.

hawkeye54 on March 4, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Third!
Can we have a vote?

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Anchor babies are in the constitution. They get to stay. I like and have previously proposed that illegal immigrants get permanent residency but not citizenship, and no, it’s not just about voting.

alwaysfiredup on March 4, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Why is it that Californians and other Blue state refugees like you keep trying to replicate the same stupid policies that destroyed where you live?

For some it the refugees mission to convert their new home state to the same blissful environment they left behind. You see, the polices were good, its the stupid politicians and bureaucrats who are to blame for bumbling in carrying out the policies. Surely, in the new states, the politicians and bureaucrats will do it right this time.

hawkeye54 on March 4, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Who exactly is a “far-right whack job”? Allen West? Louie Gohmert? Ted Cruz? I’m curious.

rrpjr on March 4, 2013 at 3:34 PM

The first two most definitely. I’m not sure about Cruz. I think that he is playing for the cameras. But he definitely doesn’t come off as likeable.

Illinidiva on March 4, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Like, ummm, Obama likable?
You make it so easy, Susan Collins.

RovesChins on March 4, 2013 at 3:51 PM

To be elected in IL as a Republican you have to be socially moderate. The last successful, unindicted governor was Jim Edgar, a moderate Republican.

Illinidiva on March 4, 2013 at 3:41 PM

That was so long ago that I still lived in Naperville and I moved out of Illinois in 1991. Unless I am mistaken, “Big Jim” Thompson was the last unindicted governor before Edgar.

As you have probably read, Illinois is one on the five states with the largest exodus of people. My guess is the ones that are leaving are the productive ones and the ones staying are the non-productive ones.

Illinois may be beyond saving. In many ways its debt rating is worst than California’s. Indiana and even Michigan are targeting Illinois businesses.

bw222 on March 4, 2013 at 3:52 PM

I think the decline of the Republican Party can be linked to the emergence of the word “electable.” This dreary and mutable word has come to serve as both paradoxical code for “unelectable” and to represent in some weird subtextual way the Left’s and media’s influence over our own sense of identity. Reagan would probably never have been nominated in 1980 if this term was such a big deal then.

rrpjr on March 4, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Anchor babies are in the constitution. They get to stay. I like and have previously proposed that illegal immigrants get permanent residency but not citizenship, and no, it’s not just about voting.

alwaysfiredup on March 4, 2013 at 3:49 PM

It is not in the constitution.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Like, ummm, Obama likable?
You make it so easy, Susan Collins.

RovesChins on March 4, 2013 at 3:51 PM

No he isn’t. And I don’t mind Susan Collins.

Illinidiva on March 4, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Like, ummm, Obama likable?
You make it so easy, Susan Collins.

RovesChins on March 4, 2013 at 3:51 PM

No he isn’t. And I don’t mind Susan Collins.

Illinidiva on March 4, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Of course you don’t.

RovesChins on March 4, 2013 at 4:00 PM


I think the decline of the Republican Party can be linked to the emergence of the word “electable.”

How ironic that the term got attached to a man who only ever won a single election and in a blue state, and by a margin far closer than the 2 popular 2-term GOP governors who preceded his single disastrous term in office the only real accomplishment of which was a botch of policy functionally identical to ObamaCare, something called RomneyCare.

casuist on March 4, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Like, ummm, Obama likable?

You make it so easy, Susan Collins.

RovesChins on March 4, 2013 at 3:51 PM

No he isn’t. And I don’t mind Susan Collins.

Illinidiva on March 4, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Oh joy, four hour long baby-talk SOTU speeches.

slickwillie2001 on March 4, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Umm.. If so, please come to IL and see what it is like to live under dysfunctional Democratic and swishy Republican rule.

Illinidiva on March 4, 2013 at 3:21 PM

I moved from the Chicago suburbs to the Detroit suburbs in 1991. Detroit was a pit then and it’s a pit now. Chicago is moving in Detroit’s direction. Michigan used to be worse than Illinois. It’s now far better. We have a Republican (RINO) governor and the GOP controls both houses of the state legislature. They repealed one of the most repressive business taxes in the nation while Illinois just significantly increased taxes on individuals and bueinesses. Illinois keeps running further in debt; Michigan now has a surplus. The difference: C(r)ook County (Chicago) controls Illinois; Wayne County (Detroit) does not control Michigan.

bw222 on March 4, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Question: why did it suddenly become some kind of metaphysical imperative that we must have an immigration bill, or God help us, ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ this Spring? Why now? Says who?

Isn’t anything that the democratics and the RINOs might come up with infinitely worse than the status quo?

slickwillie2001 on March 4, 2013 at 4:03 PM

I’m going to use a 3-D printer to create a candy-apple red AR-15 that shoots Hershey kisses and gourmet jelly-beans just so Senator Boxer can denounce me from her Senate Chambers, which is a claim about as relevant as anything some loser from the distant past named Jeb Bush has to say.

casuist on March 4, 2013 at 4:04 PM

Wait. Did I mean Senator Feinstein? I get those women mixed up.

casuist on March 4, 2013 at 4:06 PM

No he isn’t. And I don’t mind Susan Collins.

Illinidiva on March 4, 2013 at 3:56 PM

In Illinois this ^^^ is what passes for a hard right Republican, lol. Illinidiva is a good representative of the attitude of Republicans in Illinois. They mostly are entrenched Susan Collins types.

C(r)ook County (Chicago) controls Illinois…

bw222 on March 4, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Yup. Gov. Quinn won 3 counties and won the state. The whole state is a clusterfark. And, a lot of the Republican women in Illinois are like mindless pack animals on social issues. Anecdotally, I believe the Republican candidate Bill Brady lost because he backed a cost saving animal euthanasia bill…

One of the ads stated:

“Just two days after Bill Brady won the primary for governor, Sen. Bill Brady’s first priority was to sponsor a bill that would mass-euthanize sheltered dogs and cats in gas chambers.”

“Shame on Bill Brady!” says a woman holding a fluffy white dog. “I’m a Republican, but I don’t support him for the mass euthanization of animals.”

Seriously.

Politifact found it to be half-true. I did voter outreach calling for the Republican Party and you’d be surprised how many Republican women parroted this reason for not voting for Brady.

Fallon on March 4, 2013 at 4:20 PM

But then, who cares what Jeb Bush thinks?

MTF on March 4, 2013 at 4:23 PM

I assume he thinks he’s built up enough cred with Latinos over the years that backing away from a path to citizenship now won’t cost him many votes. We’ll see.

He’s right about this. He was not going to win the Latino vote anyway. they vote democratic. they are fiscal liberals. Nobody is going to win a majority of Hispanic votes by pandering on immigration. Even a Hispanic GOP nominee likely will not win a majority of the Hispanic vote.

The thinking that caving on illegal immigration will win any votes is not backed up by one shred of evidence, and all factual evidence we have is the opposite. After Reagan’s amnesty the Hispanic vote did not shift toward the GOP. Bush’s push did not shift the vote to the GOP. The Hispanic vote is not there for the GOP because most Hispanics are fiscally very liberal.

And, if the GOP nominates Jeb Bush in 2016, it will be the biggest landslide the Dems have won since FDR. Who in their right minds thinks a Bush can win in 2016?

These people are all delusional.

Monkeytoe on March 4, 2013 at 4:24 PM

There has to be some difference between immigrants who love and respect this country (and our culture of success) and migrants who’s self entitlement tells them to take it. Literally.

Speakup on March 4, 2013 at 4:24 PM

In Illinois this ^^^ is what passes for a hard right Republican, lol. Illinidiva is a good representative of the attitude of Republicans in Illinois. They mostly are entrenched Susan Collins types.

In Chicago and the suburbs yes. And there are two types.. Combine players like George Ryan/ Jim Thompson and reformist types like Mark Kirk.

Yup. Gov. Quinn won 3 counties and won the state. The whole state is a clusterfark. And, a lot of the Republican women in Illinois are like mindless pack animals on social issues. Anecdotally, I believe the Republican candidate Bill Brady lost because he backed a cost saving animal euthanasia bill…

It was mainly the mammogram commercial, but sponsoring a bill that can be construed that you want to kill puppies doesn’t help. This is what they teach on the first day of politics 101. Don’t vote for bills that can be easily turned into attack ads by your opponents. Brady decided to become an easily carictured candidate.

Illinidiva on March 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM

I think the decline of the Republican Party can be linked to the emergence of the word “electable.”

How ironic that the term got attached to a man who only ever won a single election and in a blue state, and by a margin far closer than the 2 popular 2-term GOP governors who preceded his single disastrous term in office the only real accomplishment of which was a botch of policy functionally identical to ObamaCare, something called RomneyCare.

casuist on March 4, 2013 at 4:01 PM

And yet that “unelectable” guy won the college graduate vote in the 2012 US Presidential election.

But since his opponent the incumbent greatly increased his share of the high school dropout vote from 70% to 80%, he managed to squeak out a win.

O’bama thanks you for your vote in 2012. Enjoy your next four years!

Del Dolemonte on March 4, 2013 at 4:35 PM

In Chicago and the suburbs yes. And there are two types.. Combine players like George Ryan/ Jim Thompson and reformist types like Mark Kirk

What has Mark Kirk ever reformed? He is an establishment hack whom many believe is Obama’s secret weapon on gun control.

Your problem, Diva, is that you confuse sports with politics. Yes, it’s important that your Bears and Illini win regardless of how they do it. In politics, it’s much different. The Republicans won in 2000, 2002 and 2004. They accomplished nothing except increasing spending and paving the way for the most anti-American, divisive President in our nation’s history.

bw222 on March 4, 2013 at 4:42 PM

Actually Quinn won four counties – C(r)ook and three on the Missouri border. He did not win suburban DuPage and Lake counties.

bw222 on March 4, 2013 at 4:54 PM

bw222 on March 4, 2013 at 4:42 PM

You forgot the Pelosi and Reid they got put into power.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 4:54 PM

“There has to be some difference between people who come here legally and illegally.”

Hmmmmm…..I wonder what that would be…this is a toughy….can I use a lifeline to “Poll the Audience”?

BobMbx on March 4, 2013 at 5:19 PM

What has Mark Kirk ever reformed? He is an establishment hack whom many believe is Obama’s secret weapon on gun control.

He is definitely a clean government type. Also, even if Kirk caves there isn’t a majority for it.

Your problem, Diva, is that you confuse sports with politics. Yes, it’s important that your Bears and Illini win regardless of how they do it. In politics, it’s much different. The Republicans won in 2000, 2002 and 2004. They accomplished nothing except increasing spending and paving the way for the most anti-American, divisive President in our nation’s history.

bw222 on March 4, 2013 at 4:42 PM

Well, I’m glad that President Bush was in office on September 11th. I also enjoy the tax cuts. The Rs lost because they became corrupt in Congress. It is also hard for an incumbent party to win more than two terms – (The rule of two terms.) But they actually won in the first part of the decade. What you are suggesting means the Rs losing for the next decade? That means entitlement collapse, a debt crisis, a stagnant economy, and higher taxes. If presenting a candidate with a more moderate tone, passing immigration reform, and not hectoring people on social issues are needed to accomplish that, then I’m all for it. The fiscal stuff is more important.

Illinidiva on March 4, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Actually Quinn won four counties – C(r)ook and three on the Missouri border. He did not win suburban DuPage and Lake counties.

bw222 on March 4, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Bradley didn’t win those two counties by enough to overcome the dead voters in Chicago.

Illinidiva on March 4, 2013 at 5:27 PM

No the issue is that the Rs insist on running unelectable candidates from downstate. Blago was impeached and Pat Quinn is a certifiable moron. But Republicans decided to nominate a socially conservative downstate Republican and lost by a handful of votes because the Ds ran disgraceful ads saying he wanted to deny women mammograms, etc. (Think that war on womenz Xs 100.)

illinidiva

So basically, you’re saying the dems won because they lied about the R candidate in a bunch of ads. That being the case, then I have a newsflash for you….it had nothing to do with running a social conservative candidate. Dems can lie about social moderate candidates too.

xblade on March 4, 2013 at 5:31 PM

If presenting a candidate with a more moderate tone, passing immigration reform, and not hectoring people on social issues are needed to accomplish that, then I’m all for it. The fiscal stuff is more important.

Illinidiva

Of course you’re ok with that…you’re a democrat pretending to be a republican. You’ll cave on anything if it means winning. No reason anyone should believe that doesn’t include “the fiscal stuff” too.

xblade on March 4, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Your problem, Diva, is that you confuse sports with politics.

bw222

Her problem is she’s really a democrat who is trying her best to convince folks here that she isn’t. It’s not working, lol.

xblade on March 4, 2013 at 5:38 PM

What are we stupid? Rubio is Jeb’s Waterboy. Rubio had no interest in amnesty until Jeb shoved it down his throat.

The Age of Bush is O.V.E.R. and no amount of Bush drama queen from his dinosaur mafia is ever going to make conservatives embrace him or his family again.

Jeb the picture of you and your dad spending a nice quiet little afternoon with Obama at the White House is permanently etched in our brains.

Houston we have a problem Bab’s rolodex doesn’t mean chit! Bye bye Tokyo Rove.

Jayrae on March 4, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Mexico is doing pretty good after sending all those millions of Mexicans to the US. One might say they were cleansed of a lot of dead weight.

Buddahpundit on March 4, 2013 at 6:45 PM

Who cares what yet ANOTHER socialist lite Bush thinks about ANYTHING?

Freddy on March 4, 2013 at 9:57 PM

So basically, you’re saying the dems won because they lied about the R candidate in a bunch of ads. That being the case, then I have a newsflash for you….it had nothing to do with running a social conservative candidate. Dems can lie about social moderate candidates too.

xblade on March 4, 2013 at 5:31 PM

The key is to get good candidates that don’t feed into their narratives. Bradley feed right into their narrative. He had virtually no campaign in the Chicago suburbs. He refused to moderate his tone. He sponsored a bill that could be flipped into an ad that he liked killing puppies. He was politically tone deaf.

The thing that I loved about the Rubio water bottle gate is that for once a Republican acted cleverly in a situation. The MSM was all ready to use that to make Rubio the next Palin. But Rubio flipped the situation to his advantage by not playing the game they wanted to. First time the R politician has done something that wasn’t stupid with his image.

Of course you’re ok with that…you’re a democrat pretending to be a republican. You’ll cave on anything if it means winning. No reason anyone should believe that doesn’t include “the fiscal stuff” too.

xblade on March 4, 2013 at 5:36 PM

No because the fiscal stuff affects me negatively. Whether or not two gay guys can get married or the immigration status of the Mexican guy down the street doesn’t.

Illinidiva on March 4, 2013 at 10:36 PM

Why do all these GOP wannabees advocate political party suicide???

Jeb, W, McCain, Rubio, et al, are advocating trying to out-pander the Democrats chasing after the 54% of Hispanic-American citizens who favor amnesty — and LOSING the conservative base — because they assume ALL Hispanic-American citizens favor amnesty for illegal aliens. That will be the last time the GOP wins a national election.

The should instead appeal to the 40% of Hispanic-American citizens who favor attrition through enforcement — and KEEP the conservative base.

And if you don’t think attrition works WHEN IT IS ENFORCED — watch this illegal alien explain why he is leaving Georgia.

fred5678 on March 4, 2013 at 11:05 PM

Jeb, we don’t care what La Raza thinks. Go back to sleep.

virgo on March 5, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Let’s try this on for size.

You are here illegally. OK, we’ll let you stay, officially, based on a series of conditions. If anyone in your immediate family breaks these conditions your entire family is “outahere” as soon as you are imprisoned. When your prison term is up, you are gone, too. DWI’s and other selected classes of violations will produce the same result with or without prison time.

These conditions are: (Here’s where we negotiate it.)
1) You learn English. This is a hardship for many as there are many people who have little or no proficiency learning languages. But if you do not learn English you are too likely to be victimized by those who do. And you are too unlikely to get a good job. You need at least good enough English skills that you can read street signs and cook food safely in a kitchen filled with only English labeled foodstuffs and cleaning agents.

2) You see to it that your children go to school and to the extent it is within your power you make sure they are taught in English, learn what they are taught, do not disrupt schools, and become model residents of the United States.

3) You stay off welfare.

4) …?

{^_^}

herself on March 5, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Bushs. Clintons. GOOD-BYE already.

I can’t believe he’s seriously considering running. C’mon…given his last name, the ads write themselves (and still will in ’16).

Four more years of Obama. Eight years of Hillary. Eight of Jeb. Then it’s time for Chealse. We are doomed.

georgeofthedesert on March 5, 2013 at 12:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 2