Tag Archives: parties

WaPo Insists GOP Lacks Confidence of 72 Percent; But 43 Percent Said They Had ‘Some’

The Washington Post announced bad news for its largely liberal readers in its poll Tuesday morning. The headline said “6 in 10 Americans lack faith in Obama: Congress still held in lower esteem, but poll shows gap narrowing.” Those who read the story would wait until the end of paragraph six (just before the jump) to get this liberal-haunting number: “Those most likely to vote in the midterms prefer the GOP over continued Democratic rule by a sizable margin of 56 percent to 41 percent .” But if the Post reader skipped the gray text and went just for the graphics, they’d get the impression that Republicans are worse off than the Democrats: they’d see asked “how much confidence do you have” in the parties, they showed Obama’s “lack faith” number at 58 percent, Democrats in Congress at 68 percent, and Republicans at 72 percent. But wait: in parentheses it says “percent of voters saying ‘just some’ or ‘none'”. (That wasn’t bolded in the paper, as it is on the website.) Here’s the rub: deep in the Post’s data (question 3), it shows Republicans “just some” number was 43 percent and “none” was 29 percent, while Democrats “just some” number was 35 percent and “none” was 32 percent. So portraying the Republican standing as “worse” than the Democrats (complete with trouble-red emphasis) is misleading at best. Post reporters Dan Balz and Jon Cohen simply blurred the numbers together, without a breakdown: “About seven in 10 registered voters say they lack confidence in Democratic lawmakers and a similar proportion say so of Republican lawmakers.” But the networks took that misleading impression and hardened it, with NBC’s Matt Lauer proclaiming ” just slightly more than 7 in 10 Americans don’t have faith in Republicans in Congress.” That quick-and-dirty formulation has zero room for 43 percent of Americans saying “just some.” The real problem here is the news judgment of the Post: the first question isn’t “How much confidence?” It’s “Who are you voting for?” If the Republicans are up 56-41 among likely voters, clearly the “just some” confidence is presently more than enough. Near the bottom of the poll story, it gets even darker for Democratic prospects: Obama’s overall standing puts him at about the same place President Bill Clinton was in the summer of 1994, a few months before Republicans captured the House and Senate in an electoral landslide. President Ronald Reagan, who also contended with a serious recession at the outset of his first term, was a little lower at this point in 1982, with a 46 percent to 45 percent split on his approval ratings. Republicans went on to lose about two dozen seats in the House that fall. The Post projected its poll as bad for Democrats, but not happy news for Republicans. Inside the paper, the headline was “Obama viewed slightly better than lawmakers.” The text box on A6 acknowledged “Democrats nationally remain on the defensive as they seek to retain both houses of Congress this fall.”

See the article here:
WaPo Insists GOP Lacks Confidence of 72 Percent; But 43 Percent Said They Had ‘Some’

Left-wing Media Regulation Group Sees ‘Astroturf’ Everywhere Except in Mirror

Advocacy groups have increasingly labelled their opposition as “astroturf,” or corporate-funded fake grassroots, groups in order to demean them and lessen the fact that both sides enjoy some measure of public support. Many of the organizations throwing around accusations of astroturfing, such as the Marxist net neutrality advocacy group Free Press and the liberal ThinkProgress not only engage in astroturf strategies, but are financially supported in ways they decry as astroturf. The media, unsurprisngly, has often chosen to ignore leftist astroturfing and focus on accusations of rightist astroturfing. The Daily Caller reported Wednesday on a pro-neutrality letter circulated around Capitol Hill by Free Press which was a product of the same astroturfing tactics Free Press has decried. The “signatories” of the letter had no recollection of the letter and had no idea they had signed it. One of the signatories, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation wrote to the Federal Communications Comission, The Hill reported , asking to be removed from the list of signatories. Tellingly, a Free Press spokeswoman suggested that they were pressured to do so. Presumably by the Satan-worshipping board of directors of some telecommunications company. Mike Riggs, of The Daily Caller, wrote: “Interestingly, groups like Free Press and NTEN like to publicly denounce letters with questionable signatories. In 2009, Ars Technica pointed to a letter that was supposedly authored by a group of senior citizens who supposedly had written Congress to oppose net neutrality. The group ‘forgot to strip out the “XYZ organization” and replace the text with its own name,’ reports Ars Technica, which caught wind of the letter from Free Press. ‘It’s unclear who was behind the letter, but it certainly looks like evidence of anti-neutrality forces rounding up an odd collection of allies on this issue,’ wrote Ars’ Matthew Lasar.” Free Press has shown a similar indifference to ethics in the past, with campaign director Timothy Karr quick to accuse anyone and everyone who opposes net neutrality of being a corporate tool, much of the time sans any sort of evidence, whatsoever. Michael Turk of Digital Society offered Karr $1,000 for proof that he was an astroturfer. One June 30, The Daily Caller reported that Free Press had outright lied regarding the FCC preventing them from attending closed-door meetings on net neutrality when they had, in fact attended. Similarly, they said they had been invited to attend a Congressional meeting on the issue and then told reporters they had been denied access. The same Daily Caller story pointed out that Free Press is a member of the Open Internet Coalition , a pro-net neutrality group. Amazon, Google, eBay, PayPal, Twitter, Earthlink are members, as are several marketing firms. Not only that, but Free Press’s own lobbying efforts are coordinated by a firm called the Glover Park Group, of which anti-net neutrality company Verizon is also a client. Many of the accusations of astroturfing by telecommunications companies in other blogs and publications ultimately come from Free Press. When PBS’ Media Shift experienced a large number of anti-net neutrality comments, Free Press campaign director Timothy Karr was quick to offer his expertise in throwing around astroturfing accusations for them. Wrote Mark Glaser: “While I have seen a lot of evidence pointing toward certain individuals who post time and again against Net neutrality, I haven’t found a ‘smoking gun’ that proves without a doubt that this campaign is paid for by telecom companies.” So Free Press denounces certain tactics as astroturfing, but when they engage in them, it’s grassroots advocacy. That’s a sharp contrast to the Tea Parties, which were heavily accused of being astroturf last year, by several media outlets. Wrote Julia A. Seymour of the Business & Media Institute: “ABC’s Dan Harris repeated criticism from the left that the tea parties were ‘a product’ of Fox News and lobbyist organizations.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been one of the more visible figures reitterating the charge. Well, as long as Free Press provides the media with “information” and the corporate-funded liberal activists continue to be “grassroots,” there won’t need to be a smoking gun because any center-right organization will be astroturf.

Read more:
Left-wing Media Regulation Group Sees ‘Astroturf’ Everywhere Except in Mirror

Progress for Ohio’s Farmed Animals | Landmark Agreement Addresses Cruel Factory Farming Practices | Thank You, Mercy for Animals!

“Dear Friends, Today great progress was made to lessen the suffering of millions of farmed animals in Ohio – progress that is a direct result of the tireless effort of our volunteers and supporters. For months, Mercy For Animals has been on the ground, in the streets, and behind-the-scenes working diligently to mobilize support and gather signatures as part of the Ohioans for Humane Farm's campaign to place an initiative on the November ballot that would phase out cruel factory farming practices in the state. Just recently, once it became known that animal advocates had gathered enough signatures to put the initiative on the ballot, animal agriculture finally agreed to discuss meaningful reforms. And on June 30th, just hours before over 500,000 signatures were slated to be filed, a major animal protection agreement was reached – preventing costly and contentious campaigning. On that day, a landmark settlement was reached between animal protection advocates, Gov. Ted Strickland, and the Ohio agribusiness lobby. The agreement includes recommendations from all of the parties for the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board, the Legislature, and the Governor to adopt the following provisions: * A ban on veal crates effective in 2017, the same year provided in the ballot measure. * A ban on new gestation crates in the state after Dec. 31, 2010. Existing facilities are grandfathered, but must cease use of these crates within 15 years. * A moratorium on permits for new battery cage confinement facilities for laying hens. * Regulations regarding the manner in which sick and injured farmed animals can be killed, including a ban on strangulation. * A ban on the transport of downer cows for slaughter. * Enactment of legislation establishing felony-level penalties for cockfighters. * Enactment of legislation cracking down on puppy mills. * A ban on the acquisition of dangerous exotic animals as pets, such as primates, bears, lions, tigers, large constricting and venomous snakes, crocodiles and alligators. While this agreement puts a hold on the planned anti-factory farming initiative for this fall's ballot, the gathered signatures still remain valid for years to come – giving us the option to go back to the ballot if the terms of the agreement are not fulfilled. Mercy For Animals will continue to work diligently to protect Ohio's farmed animals from cruelty, hold abusers accountable, educate the public on farmed animal issues, and advocate for stricter state and federal laws. This landmark, hard-fought progress for Ohio's animals would not have been possible without the determined, selfless, and inspiring work of hundreds of volunteers and supporters. Truly, because of you, we have moved our society toward a kinder future for animals. Sincerely Nathan Runkle Executive Director” Mercy for Animals added by: EthicalVegan

BA compensates man ‘humiliated’ over child seat policy

BBC News Mirko Fischer, his wife Stefanie and daughter Sophia Mirko Fischer said he worried what message was being sent to children BA has compensated a passenger who was “humiliated' over its policy of not allowing single male flyers to sit next to solo child travellers on its planes. British Airways cabin crew told Mirko Fischer to move after he swapped seats with his wife and ended up sitting next to a boy he did not know. Mr Fischer, 33, accused staff of harassing him and said the policy contravened the Sex Discrimination Act. BA apologised to the businessman but denied the policy was discriminatory. A spokesman told the BBC the policy was now under review. A consent order detailing a settlement between the parties was drawn up at Slough County Court on Wednesday. Mr Fischer was on a flight from London back to his home in Luxembourg on 20 April 2009 when his pregnant wife Stefanie asked him to swap seats so she could sit next to the window. He took her middle seat. Anger He claimed cabin crew told him to return to his original seat as the child next to him was an unaccompanied minor. The crew said the company's policy was not to allow adult males to sit next to unaccompanied children. But Mr Fischer said he felt he was treated as if he was a potential “child molester”. He said: “I felt humiliated and outraged. They accuse you of being some kind of child molester just because you are sitting next to someone.” Continue reading the main story We had 75,000 children fly with us last year and it is an issue we take very seriously BA spokesman BA 'victimises male passengers' Your comments Mr Fischer, who was represented by Daniel Tivadar from law firm 3 Hare Court, said there was a brief discussion and he returned to his seat but felt “embarrassed, humiliated and angry”. He complained to the airline by letter and the airline confirmed the policy, stating it related to adult males travelling alone. Mr Fischer said he was being treated differently to female passengers and therefore BA was breaking the law. He said the conversation he had with cabin crew on the flight “constituted unwanted conduct that related to his sex” and violated his dignity. He also said this consequently created an uncomfortable environment for him on the plane. He said: “There were no raised voices but we were in a public place and there were obviously people around us wondering what was happening.” BA initially defended itself and said when staff originally made the request they genuinely believed Mr Fischer was travelling alone and had no intention of embarrassing, humiliating or angering him by asking him to return to his allocated seat. Mr Fischer said he suffered “loss and damage of injury to his feelings” and had sought compensation. 'No flexibility' BA is understood to have admitted sex discrimination in Mr Fischer's case and agreed to pay

The NYT’s Skewed View: Liberal Newsweek ‘Strives to Be Apolitical," Far-Left Daily Kos Just a ‘Political Blog’

Tw o stories in Thursday’s New York Times featured the paper avoiding pinning liberal labels on two media organs: the liberal newsmagazine Newsweek and the far-left political blog Daily Kos. Reporter Jeremy Peters insisted in Thursday’s Business Day that the left-leaning magazine Newsweek was “apolitical,” yet easily spotted a right tilt in two potential purchasers of the struggling weekly: ” 2 Suitors for Newsweek Are Said to Be Ruled Out .” A photo caption made the easily refutable claim that Newsweek “strives to be apolitical.” The Washington Post is looking for a bidder who will be a good fit for the magazine, which strives to be apolitical. Really now? As Nathan Burchfiel at NewsBusters reminds us: “Newsweek has attacked Tea Parties and conservative leaders like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh , earned praise from gay marriage activists for its coverage, launched pro-atheism attacks on religious figures like Mother Teresa, among numerous other liberal positions.” Peters gave Newsweek’s editors the benefit of the doubt on its liberal slant, which even Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz believes is an accurate view: The ideas that Newsweek is promoting are mainly left-of-center….When Newsweek put a conservative’s essay on the cover, it was by David Frum, assailing Rush Limbaugh under the headline ‘Why Rush Is Wrong.’ And when Newsweek took on Obama, it did so from the left, in a piece built around New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and his criticism of the president’s economic policies. Peters was able to see conservatism and libertarianism in the two rejected buyers, but not the clear liberalism at Newsweek. With no shortage of interested parties, the issue for the Post Company has become whether it can find a new owner that the company’s chairman and chief executive, Donald E. Graham, believes will be a suitable steward for the magazine. That is the main reason the Post Company decided not to entertain offers from Newsmax or Mr. Ritchie, according to these people. The conservative political ideology of Newsmax’s chief executive, Christopher Ruddy, is at odds with the editorial bent of Newsweek, which strives to be apolitical in its news coverage though is often criticized as left-leaning. And Mr. Ritchie, who unsuccessfully tried to buy the Sun Times Media Group last year, is viewed as more libertarian in his political views . He has explored creating a third political party in Illinois with supporters of Ross Perot. Also on Thursday, reporter Joseph Plambeck had every opportunity to identify Daily Kos as a far-left blog in ” Politics Blog Questions Polling Data It Had Used ,” but failed to do so.  Political junkies are fascinated by the emerging brawl between Markos Moulitsas, founder of the far-left campaign blog Daily Kos, and the polling firm Research 2000, which has been providing him with encouraging data for Democrats and slams of Republican voters as racist and conspiratorial. Moulitsas is accusing the Maryland company of having “fabricated or manipulated” polling results, based on statistical analysis done by three of his readers. The political blog Daily Kos said Tuesday that it could not trust the data it has used in its weekly poll featured prominently at the top of the Web site, raising questions for the second time in a year about the veracity of a widely used polling company. Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, the founder of Daily Kos, said in a post that an analysis done by three readers shows “quite convincingly” that the polling data provided each week to the blog by the widely used polling company, Research 2000, was “likely bunk.” The weekly poll has been published since January 2009. He is planning to sue the company for breach of contract and misrepresentation. The Times has cited Research 2000’s data in several news stories but has not commissioned polling from the group itself. More significantly, liberal columnist Charles Blow used the firm’s research to mock Republicans as conspiracists in his August 8, 2009 column . Plambeck returned again to Moulitas (in a concluding paragraph that didn’t make the print edition) touting “his blog’s success” and portraying Kos, who notoriously dismissed with an obscene phrase the brutal murders of four civilian contractors in Iraq, as a newly discerning data-miner. Mr. Moulitsas said that because of his blog’s success, there are other polling organizations willing to work with him, adding that he will require them to provide all of the raw data. “I’m not getting out of the polling game,” Mr. Moulitsas said. “I eat it. I breathe it. The last thing I want to do is see the demise of polling. I don’t know what I’d write about.”

Visit link:
The NYT’s Skewed View: Liberal Newsweek ‘Strives to Be Apolitical," Far-Left Daily Kos Just a ‘Political Blog’

Great Lakes Compact leaves the door open to privitization

The Great Lakes Compact while being touted by the parties involved as a good start, leaves holes in it that are actually big enough to unravel it. Leaving the door open to private companies to privitize its water means that the Great Lakes Compact is a document that must be open to more scrutiny in the wake of climate change, water shortages, population increases, and interboundary disputes. This water is a public trust, not a commodity. James Olsen in this interview lays these concerns out. added by: JanforGore

Scarborough Calls on Petraeus and Gates to Fire McChrystal to ‘Keep the President’s Hands Clean’

During Tuesday’s Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough called for the firing of General Stanley McChrystal. He boldly exclaimed that this discharge should not come from the Commander-in-Chief because “Democrats have to treat generals differently from Republicans.” He goes even further and states, “Were this a Republican, were it George W. Bush, McChrystal would have been fired yesterday,” and “the press would have understood it.” Of course, because during the last administration, the media was noted for giving former President George W. Bush the benefit of the doubt, especially with military decisions. Interestingly enough, a flashback to January 31, 2006, tells a different tale. During MSNBC’s three-hour post State of the Union coverage, Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough, denounced President Bush’s message about Iraq. Matthews thought that President Bush “cashiered” General Shinseki’s remarks about wanting more troops and believed the “idea that these guys are free to think out loud, I thought, has been yet to be proven.” Scarborough echoed Matthews and cited that, “For the most part, the Generals and the Admirals, 99 percent of them parrot what the Pentagon and what the President wants.” [Full article available here ] However, it is now 2010, and it is no longer cool to have the courage to stand up or to think out loud against this administration. There is a new president, so Scarborough insisted, because he is a Democrat, “Gates and Petraeus both have to come out, they need to fire McChrystal, and keep the president’s hands clean.” Since, Scarborough served on the Armed Services Committee he should be aware that the President is the top link in the chain of command and therefore is the ultimate authority, but he wants to make it easier for this Democrat to not do his duty as Commander-in-Chief. Apparently, Scarborough’s conservative viewpoint is synonymous with other MSNBC hosts who parrots White House talking points.

Newsweek Blogger: Tea Party Coverage Isn’t Harsh Enough

Newsweek blogger Ben Adler thinks the national media are giving the Tea Parties gentle treatment. “Unfortunately,” Adler wrote in a June 21 post , “what appear to be false notions of objectivity – or perhaps a lack of interest in policy – is preventing that coverage from illuminating what the movement actually represents and what it would do if empowered.” Adler complained that a recent Associated Press article, ” Enraged to Engaged: Tea partiers explain why ,” failed to examine the ideology of the demonstrators in the grassroots conservative movement. “The piece examines how and why a variety of individuals became involved in the Tea Party movement without once asking what precisely the platform consists of,” Adler said, leading one to wonder if he even read the article. The 2,300-word “stemwinder,” as Adler called it, written by reporter Pauline Arrillaga, presented various segments of Tea Party ideology on five separate occasions. In the third paragraph, Arrillaga notes that the purpose of the Tea Party-affiliated Lincoln Club in Yucca Valley, Calif., is “to promote educate and advance conservative principles of fiscal responsibility small limited government, free enterprise, the rule of law, private property rights, and the preservation and protection of individual liberty.” Eric Odom, widely regarded as a founder of the Tea Party movement, told Arrillaga said the group’s purpose was, “to make sure that we’re represented by people who are looking out for our rights and upholding the Constitution… And if they don’t, to make sure we have an infrastructure to really take them out rather than have these thugs that are in there for 30, 40 years.” As Adler put it, Tea Partiers are “vehemently opposed” to raising taxes. “But when it comes to specifics, suddenly every program seems worthier than when demonized in the collective abstract. Which politician wants to cut spending on Homeland Security? Education for students with special needs? (Surely not Sarah Palin!),” Adler said in a reference to Palin’s son, Trig, who was born with Down syndrome. Adler complained that the AP would dare characterized Tea Party demonstrators as “concerned Americans trying to find their voices, and a way to channel their disgust.” He suggested they aren’t motivated by love of country or concern for the future, but by ignorance. Arrillaga’s article refuted the notion that Tea Party activists are “ignorant,” however. Bill Warner, Lincoln Club member, ran his own engineering firm for three decades. Hildy Angius is currently running the Republican Woman’s Club, and is a staunch Tea Party Activist. She is an ex-PR agent with a degree from New York State Albany. Eric Odom started the Tea Party movement fresh out of college. Tea Partiers come from all walks of life and have diverse academic backgrounds. Adler also predictable recycled a tired media-drive stereotype that Tea Party members are racist. He suggested they are too dumb to realize they’re racist. “Might it be possible that the Tea Partiers who profess no racial motivation are, let’s say, not entirely aware of their own visceral motivations? I’m sure if you asked the Southern voters who switched to Republican voting habits why they did so, many would say race had nothing to do with it. But why should journalists take that at face value?” Adler said. Adler’s assertion that the media have been soft on the Tea Parties might come as a surprise to anyone who’s paid attention to media coverage of Tea Parties. From the very first demonstrations in April 2009, reporters have attacked Tea Party members . According to a Media Research Center study , the media at first tried to ignore the demonstrations, but quickly moved into attack mode, portraying Tea Party protestors as extremists. Just last week, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews aired a “documentary” about the Tea Party portraying its members as racists, terrorists and conspiracy theorists. 

View post:
Newsweek Blogger: Tea Party Coverage Isn’t Harsh Enough

Chris Matthews: Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina Guilty of ‘Very Hard-right Talk’

With Americans heading to the polls in less than five months, the liberal media have once again adopted their typical strategy of depicting every Republican candidate as being a far-right extremist. Such was on display in this weekend’s syndicated “Chris Matthews Show” when the host began the second segment by saying, “This week’s primaries proved again that this anti-Washington year may usher in Republicans who owe a lot to the far-right.” Matthews then played a clip from his upcoming special “Rise of the New Right,” saying after its completion, “Well, Tea Parties have had some luck with conservatives who have beaten establishment Republicans this year. This past Tuesday night, for example, Nevada Republicans chose a Tea Party candidate to go against Harry Reid. And she’s not shy about her extreme views like killing Social Security and Medicare. After a brief clip of Sharron Angle speaking at a Nevada debate, Matthews said, “And even mainstream Republicans like Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina who won nominations this week in California have bent to the right in reaction to pressure from the hard-right.” Matthews then showed a Whitman ad wherein she was talking tough about illegal immigration followed by a Fiorina commercial that had the nerve to use “that tried and true conservative line ‘The Democrats are soft on terrorism.'” The host then asked New York Magazine’s John Heilemann, “That’s very hard-right talk; is that the smart talk to win an election in California?” (video follows with more transcription of this discussion): JOHN HEILEMANN, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: Well, it’s not…It’s very clear in California in particular that this is a problem, and you see both sides of the problem. In the Fiorina race, Tom Campbell would have been the better candidate for the Republicans. MATTHEWS: To win. HEILEMANN: To win in, in, in November. Stop the tape. Whether or not Campbell has a better chance of beating Boxer than Fiorina does is quite speculative. After all, he got absolutely crushed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) in 2000 losing by over 2 million votes. He even lost his own district that year by 15 points! But even this is somewhat irrelevant, for the truly conservative candidate in last week’s Republican primary was the Tea Party’s favorite Chuck DeVore. Readers should recall former Alaska governor Sarah Palin taking A LOT of heat last month when she came out in support of Fiorina instead of DeVore. As such, Matthews and Heilemann trying to depict Fiorina as a far-right candidate here were way off base: MATTHEWS: Do they want to win or be right, I mean literally right? HEILEMANN: Well, the Republican primary, the Republican primary electorate seems to want to be right more than it wants to win. Nonsense. Republicans on Tuesday went with the person with the most money that they believe can beat Boxer. If they had wanted the most conservative candidate, they would have gone for DeVore. That is NOT even debatable: HEILEMANN: So you wind up then with Carly Fiorina saying stuff it’s not clear she really believes in order to win against a candidate who probably would have had a better chance. Based on what? Fiorina beat Campbell by 32 points! Unfortunately, Matthews didn’t challenge Heilemann’s ignorant display: HEILEMANN: Then you have Meg Whitman who an otherwise very attractive candidate with tons of money who’s on the fundamentally wrong side as history shows us in California of this immigration issue. These are two candidates who on the surface should be very attractive, very compelling, and they’re both so far off on the right they’re so stranded. Amazing. Like Fiorina, Whitman wasn’t the conservative candidate in her race. That was Steve Poizner, the Golden State’s Insurance Commissioner. Conservatives throughout California largely supported him including Rep. Tom McClintock who said in campaign ads: Steve Poizner is the only conservative candidate in this race and is serious about implementing real reform in Sacramento. I am convinced that Meg Whitman has nothing to offer other than Arnold Schwarzenegger’s third term. That is something California cannot afford. Taking this further, Whitman was John McCain’s national co-chair when he ran for president in 2008. As for her immigration position, Whitman was critical of Arizona’s SB 1070. For some reason neither Matthews nor Heilemann brought this up. In the end, now that the primary season is over, the goal of America’s media will be to make every Republican candidate around the country look far more conservative than they really are. Something they possibly haven’t considered is that in a year when liberal is likely a four-letter word, being branded as far-right might be a good thing. Hmmm.

See the original post:
Chris Matthews: Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina Guilty of ‘Very Hard-right Talk’

Sexy Bikini Girls – Meet Cindy!

www.A3Network.com. Sexy Bikini Girls – Meet Cindy! A3Network is a group of online TV channels that reflect the modern lifestyle, featuring Bikini Girls, Sexy Pool Parties, Nightlife, Clubs, DJs, Music Videos, Style, Art and Fashion. Whatever the flavor, the most exciting videos on the web! Original A3 Network content is produced by http

http://www.youtube.com/v/8Egkp3nDdMY?f=videos&app=youtube_gdata

Read the rest here:
Sexy Bikini Girls – Meet Cindy!