PDA

View Full Version : The Holy Ghost Victory For The GOP



Nbadan
10-26-2006, 01:34 AM
In less than two weeks, many will find out just what type of banana republic we live in today...

A loaves & fishes/Holy Ghost victory for the GOP in November?
by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman
October 17, 2006


The polls all point to a Democratic sweep in November. The news pours in about pedophile Republicans and Team Bush contempt for their fundamentalist bedmates. Iraq implodes. Deficits soar. Katrina lingers. Scandal is everywhere.

On the other hand, there are rumors of an "October Surprise." An attack on Iran. A new terror incident. Osama finally captured.

Gas prices are down, the stock market up.

None of it dampens the Democrats' euphoria. They think they are about to win. In conventional terms, they should.

But think again. Please.

It will take just two Biblical fixes for the GOP to keep the Congress, and thus solidify their power in this country, possibly forever: a loaves and fishes vote count, a Holy Ghost turnout.

We coined the phrase "loaves and fishes vote count" to describe the tally in Gahanna, Ohio, 2004. This infamous precinct in suburban Columbus registered 4258 votes for George W. Bush where just 638 people voted. The blessed event occurred at a fundamentalist church run by a close ally of the Reverend Jerry Falwell.

These numbers were later "corrected." But they reflect a much larger reality: the 2004 election was stolen with scores of dirty tricks for whose second coming the Democrats have yet to fully prepare.

In the two years since the fraudulent defeat of John Kerry, we've unearthed an unholy arsenal by which that election was stolen. They include: outright intimidation, wrongful elimination of registered voters, theft, selective deployment of (often faulty) voting machines, absentee ballots without Kerry's name on them, absentee ballots pre-punched for Bush, absentee ballots never mailed, touch screens that lit up for Bush when Kerry was chosen, lines for black voters five hours long while white voters a mile away voted in fifteen minutes, tens of thousands of provisional ballots pitched summarily in the trash, alleged ex-felons illegally told they could not vote, Hispanic precincts with no Spanish-speaking poll workers, deliberate misinformation on official web sites…and that's not even the tip of an iceberg whose bottom we may never see.

Thanks to a federal lawsuit, we have finally been able to look at some of the actual ballots from Ohio 2004. Just for starters, researchers Stuart Wright and Dr. Richard Hayes Phillips have found a precinct in Delaware County where 359 consecutive voters allegedly cast ballots for Bush. Dr. Ron Baiman found another precinct in Clermont County where a random inspection found 36 straight replacement ballots, a phenomenon that can be accomplished only by divine intervention or outright fraud.

These initial snippets have been unearthed with no cooperation or participation from the Democratic Party. The official Democratic spin is that they have "looked into the matter." But public records indicate that they have yet to visit the actual ballot storage facilities to examine the public records from the 2004 election.

In sum, we see no indication that the Democrats are prepared for the inevitable…that Karl Rove will steal again, and more, in 2006.

In Ohio alone, four election boards have already eliminated some 500,000 voters since the 2000 election---ten percent of the state's electorate---from the registration rolls in four Democratic counties. No similar purges have occurred in rural Republican counties. The Democrats have said or done very little about it.

To date there is no logical explanation from John Kerry as to why he conceded with 250,000 votes still uncounted while Bush's alleged margin was just half that. Nor have we heard about Democrat plans to monitor the ever-larger numbers of electronic voting machines deployed throughout the United States with no paper trail and no transparency for programming codes and memory cards that are privately owned, with no public inspection allowed.

Which is brings us to the Holy Ghost turnout. As Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has reported in Rolling Stone Magazine, in Georgia 2002, U.S. Senate incumbent Max Cleland went into Election Day with a very substantial lead in the polls. He proceeded to allegedly lose by a substantial margin. Church-state operatives like Ralph Reed attributed this astonishing turn-around to an alleged last-minute mass turnout of evangelical voters.

Similar things were said about Florida and Ohio 2004.

But it never happened. There are no visual reports or other reliable indicators of extraordinary lines or massive late-in-the-day crowds at the polls. Throughout all those election days, it was every bit as quick and easy to vote in rural precincts that gave Bush his miraculous victory as it was impossible to do so in your average black neighborhood. But there was no extraordinary turnout of last-minute Bush voters.

What happened instead hearkens to the Holy Ghost, made manifest in electronic voting machines that cannot and will not be monitored. The miraculous pro-Bush margins give new meaning to the phrase "ghost in the machine." While the Democratic vote count was slashed and trashed in urban precincts, the rural voting stations, through the miracle of untrackable electronics, materialized just the right number of GOP votes to keep the Men of God in the White House (where it's recently reported they dare to mock those earthly evangelicals who allegedly gave them their margin of victory).

There's absolutely nothing to prevent this from happening again in 2006. Major studies from the Conyers Committee, the Government Accountability Office, Princeton University, the Brennan Center, the Carter-Baker Commission, and esteemed others, have all come to the same conclusion: it takes just one individual with inside access---or even just a wi-fi machine---to change the outcome of any election anywhere.

Electronic voting machines can be pre-programmed, re-programmed, re-calibrated, electronically adjusted, hacked, jimmied, jammed or otherwise blessed with a few well-placed electrons and---LO AND BEHOLD!---a Democratic landslide can be born again to a Republican deliverance.

We already see the signs. The corporate bloviators predict a last-minute surge for Bush. The Fox/Rove media machine has planted suggestive stories at the New York Times and elsewhere about the alleged hidden powers of the GOP juggernaut. They will, they say, once again turn out those invisible legions of evangelical voters when and where necessary.

Every two years, Rove leaks some story that is implausible and easily refuted: four million new evangelical voters are identified nationwide; or, a late surge of homophobic Old Order Amish rush to the polls in Ohio; or shy and reluctant right-wing Republican women flood the polls at closing and slip out unseen without speaking to exit pollsters (but, they are only shy in the early evening in Republican counties).

And the Democrats? They say they are also turning out voters. But what happens when their names are miraculously gone from the new electronic registration rolls? When there aren't enough machines in their precincts on which to vote? When they press a Democratic name on their touch-screen and an anointed Republican's lights up? Or when techno-gods from private partisan vendors barge in unchallenged to "adjust" the e-machines in the middle of the voting process.

So far, the Democrats have heaped abuse on those who dare to warn of all this.

But as it is written, so it shall be: unless there are armies of trained, dedicated citizens prepared to monitor this upcoming election, electronic and otherwise, the Holy Ghosts will vote, the loaves & fishes will multiply and be counted, and the GOP will once again emerge with total control of the checks and the balances---this time, perhaps, for all Eternity.

The Free Press (http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2006/2181)

boutons_
10-26-2006, 03:25 AM
Have anybody found any voting anomalies in 2004 Ohio that didn't favor only the Repugs?

RandomGuy
10-26-2006, 07:49 AM
I have given this story little truck, and long thought it as simply another "conspiracy" theory.

But, think about this when you read it:
Loot at the vitriol that a lot of individual Republicans hurl at the Dems, indicating a large emotive force to beat them in elections.

Given this level of desire to win and seemingly win at any cost, does it make it more or less probable that, even without a conscious wide-spread conspiracy, a large number of independent actors would attempt to rig elections in their areas?

101A
10-26-2006, 08:52 AM
...
But, think about this when you read it:
Loot at the vitriol that a lot of individual Republicans hurl at the Dems, indicating a large emotive force to beat them in elections.



You're getting more and more myopic, RG. Ever listen to a Dixie Chicks concert? How about Barbara Streishand? Ted Kennedy once said Republicans want poor children to starve to death! You yourself suggested that conservatives couldn't be Christian because we don't like to pay higher taxes!

BUSH IS HATED - and people openly say so all the time - in every venue! His motives, his intelligence, his ethics and morals are questioned CONSTANTLY! You have your X-Ray to beat up, I'll trum the hell out of that with a Boutons!

Many conservatives are simply bewildered by the lack of logic of liberals; Many liberals HATE conservatives.

Crookshanks
10-26-2006, 09:26 AM
I think these types of articles are coming out now so that the Democrats have a ready-made excuse when they lose again.

CubanMustGo
10-26-2006, 10:39 AM
I think these types of articles are coming out now so that the Democrats have a ready-made excuse when they lose again.

Yeah, heaven forbid discussing the truth. The fact that Dems are involved makes it all irrelevant.

clambake
10-26-2006, 10:39 AM
His motives are criminal.
His intelligence is=to dangerous incompetance
He is void of ethics
He is morally bankrupt

I'm sorry, was i looking for logic here?

George Gervin's Afro
10-26-2006, 10:46 AM
I'm still dumbfounded that no one on the right sees a need for a paper receipt verifying their vote. No matter who wins without a way to verify the votes there will always be doubt no matter who wins

JoeChalupa
10-26-2006, 10:47 AM
I'm telling you I won't be surprised if the Republicans keep control of both the House and the Senate. These polls mean nothing to me and some democrats may just sit this out too because of the hype that is all over the damn liberal media. It is FAR from over.

I don't like Karl Rove but the man does his homework.

Crookshanks
10-26-2006, 10:53 AM
I'm still dumbfounded that no one on the right sees a need for a paper receipt verifying their vote. No matter who wins without a way to verify the votes there will always be doubt no matter who wins

I thought one of the reasons for electronic voting was to REDUCE the paperwork (you know, save the trees and all that). If they are required to have a paper receipt it defeats the purpose. In that case, just do away with electronic voting and use the paper ballots.

Regardless of what method is used, if someone is determined to cheat, they will find a way. There have been voting "irregularities" as long as we've been voting.

Spurminator
10-26-2006, 11:13 AM
So do you favor paper receipts or not?

Extra Stout
10-26-2006, 11:44 AM
I thought one of the reasons for electronic voting was to REDUCE the paperwork (you know, save the trees and all that). If they are required to have a paper receipt it defeats the purpose. In that case, just do away with electronic voting and use the paper ballots.

Regardless of what method is used, if someone is determined to cheat, they will find a way. There have been voting "irregularities" as long as we've been voting.
That is quite an uninformed and politically negligent position you have taken there.

There are a lot of benefits to electronic voting.
It is easier to vote.
Vote totals can be tabulated a lot more quickly with a lot less manpower.
Human error can be reduced. Mechanical error can be reduced.

You get a lot of the same benefits as in any automated system. There is a reason we don't all use typewriters, or pen and paper anymore, for all of our work, and I don't think "saving the trees" is all that high up on the list.

And, curiously, though we all have computers and servers and all this nifty electronic stuff in the Information Age, I notice in my office there is this thing called a "printer." Actually, our building has like 15 of them, and they're cranking out lots of paper all day long.

If anyone were to come in here and suggest that with so much paper coming out of these printers, we ought just to ditch all of these computers and go back to typewriters, quadrille pads, and slide rules, we would -- as politely as possible -- ask them to hitch a ride on the turnip truck they just fell off of.

Since, in any voting system, with the possibility of fraud, or tampering, there needs to be data security. My company would never neglect security in its information systems. People with any prudence don't neglect security on their computers at home.

A robust information system has to be auditable.

This a lot of times can be done electronically. At work, I have a username and password, so anything I do has an electronic signature. It is trackable. In our accounting system, any transaction I perform has a tracking number associated with it that goes back to me.

Our information systems are audited periodically by a third party to verify we meet ISO standards.

Our customers demand that we go through this degree of work to maintain our systems, because it affects the quality of our products.

Likewise, the quality of our voting system affects the quality of our democracy. It seems you are content with a second- or third-rate level of security for voting. If so, you are content with a second- or third-rate form of government. Or, it may just be that since all the conspiracy theories out there say that Republicans benefit from the alleged fraud, and you like the Republicans, that you would rather look the other way.

Now, with electronic voting, some of these security concepts don't work as well. We have secret ballots, so it is not as though every voter can have a username and password to track their votes.

One of the ideas people have come up with is using paper printouts on cardstock as an independent data source for the purposes of auditing. That may not be the only way to do it, but at least it is an idea. There may be ways to do it electronically as well.

In any event, poor security on electronic voting systems makes it easier to commit fraud, and much larger fraud than has been possible in the past. Rather than stuffing ballot boxes, a canny programmer just has to alter a little bit of code.

And there are an awful lot of computer programmers in liberal strongholds like the San Francisco Bay Area and Austin.

So I don't think it behooves an avowed conservative to look the other way.

boutons_
10-26-2006, 11:46 AM
"that is quite an uninformed and politically negligent position you have taken there."

No surprise, it's Crooky. Mind closed since age 9.

sandman
10-26-2006, 11:47 AM
I'm still dumbfounded that no one on the right sees a need for a paper receipt verifying their vote.

Nice generalization.

I would be in favor of a paper receipt if it was not counter-intuitive to electronic voting. How about we make the entire electronic ballot process more transparent with higher accountability for local, state and federal officials?

sandman
10-26-2006, 11:50 AM
His motives are criminal.
His intelligence is=to dangerous incompetance
He is void of ethics
He is morally bankrupt

I'm sorry, was i looking for logic here?

Well, at least a few things on that list could stick to the majority of past Presidents from both parties. I don't think that Bush has a patent on it.

George Gervin's Afro
10-26-2006, 12:35 PM
Nice generalization.

I would be in favor of a paper receipt if it was not counter-intuitive to electronic voting. How about we make the entire electronic ballot process more transparent with higher accountability for local, state and federal officials?


There is no way to verify a re-count. If the tally was incorrect initially the re-count would be incorrect as well.

Extra Stout
10-26-2006, 12:42 PM
There is no way to verify a re-count. If the tally was incorrect initially the re-count would be incorrect as well.
What if each vote was recorded internally on the machine, and also transmitted to a database on an independent server?

You could have two separate means of tabulation that way.

George Gervin's Afro
10-26-2006, 02:06 PM
What if each vote was recorded internally on the machine, and also transmitted to a database on an independent server?

You could have two separate means of tabulation that way.


So how would I know if my vote went to the proper party/candidate? How do I know the voting machine recorded my vote?

Extra Stout
10-26-2006, 02:22 PM
So how would I know if my vote went to the proper party/candidate? How do I know the voting machine recorded my vote?
Yeah, a paper printout would be better because you could verify its accuracy before submittal, and it is something tangible. Doing that electronically would require you to sign off somehow, and since we have secret ballots, that won't work.

George Gervin's Afro
10-26-2006, 02:29 PM
Yeah, a paper printout would be better because you could verify its accuracy before submittal, and it is something tangible. Doing that electronically would require you to sign off somehow, and since we have secret ballots, that won't work.


All I want is to know my vote was recorded properly. When I vote now I have to trust that a machine records my intetnions correctly.

Extra Stout
10-26-2006, 02:44 PM
All I want is to know my vote was recorded properly. When I vote now I have to trust that a machine records my intetnions correctly.
So, we're back to the recommended scheme of having electronic voting and tabulation, but having paper cards printed out for the voter to review for accuracy, and submit to a ballot box for use in case of a recount.

To speed up the recount, perhaps there could be a way to format the paper printout so that it could be optically scanned.

Sorry, I'm thinking about this like an engineer.

Crookshanks
10-26-2006, 02:54 PM
ES - I guess I should have used this :fishing so that you would know I was being somewhat facetious.

I like electronic voting. I was making the point that it's the environmentalists (who are usually democrat) who make such a stink about killing trees - so shouldn't they be more inclined to be in favor of electronic voting?

The other point was that IF one of the purposes of electronic voting was to reduce the amount of paper, THEN doesn't it defeat that purpose by having a paper receipt? I don't care if they want to do it that way, I was just playing devil's advocate.

I think EVERY effort should be made to make it as hard as possible to cheat; if only for the reason that people today have much less confidence in the results of elections.

ChumpDumper
10-26-2006, 03:13 PM
I think EVERY effort should be made to make it as hard as possible to cheatThen you must be against the latest Diebold machines. They've made it pretty easy to cheat.

Extra Stout
10-26-2006, 03:20 PM
ES - I guess I should have used this :fishing so that you would know I was being somewhat facetious.
I omit the icon so that I can enjoy hooking people. I guess you hooked me.


I like electronic voting. I was making the point that it's the environmentalists (who are usually democrat) who make such a stink about killing trees - so shouldn't they be more inclined to be in favor of electronic voting?
They would just use unbleached recycled paper. :spin


The other point was that IF one of the purposes of electronic voting was to reduce the amount of paper, THEN doesn't it defeat that purpose by having a paper receipt? I don't care if they want to do it that way, I was just playing devil's advocate.
Reducing the paper wasn't really that high on the list of priorities. Being able to count returns within a couple of hours follwing the polls' closing is a bigger benefit.


I think EVERY effort should be made to make it as hard as possible to cheat; if only for the reason that people today have much less confidence in the results of elections.
Although I wonder, if libs really believed in their hearts that elections were rigged, why do they still try to win elections? Shouldn't they be trying to gain power by other means?

spurster
10-26-2006, 03:20 PM
As ES says, the problem with electronic voting is that is not auditable. Your are putting our democracy in the hands of a programmable machine, which are not by any means secure (http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/).

Given that we want secret ballots, I think there is little choice but to have a corresponding paper ballot for recounting.

Nbadan
10-26-2006, 04:00 PM
As ES says, the problem with electronic voting is that is not auditable. Your are putting our democracy in the hands of a programmable machine, which are not by any means secure (http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/).

Given that we want secret ballots, I think there is little choice but to have a corresponding paper ballot for recounting.

The paper trail needs to run deep. A receipt for voters so that they know that the candidate they voted for received there votes. In 2004, there were numerous incidents of people reporting voting for Kerry in Ohio and other places only to have their votes switched to Dubya by the machine. A copy of that receipt that goes into a voting lock box so that the automatic tabulation on every machine can be verified at any time by counting the votes on the receipts on assigned locked boxes. There has to be some sort of check mechanism so that precient chiefs can verify that the total being reported by the machines can be backed up by both the automatic tabulations on individual e-voting machines and by the total of votes of receipts in locked-boxes. Finally, e-voting companies need to be put out of business and run by the non-partisan GAO or some on other non-partisan entity using open source software that can be checked for foulability.

boutons_
10-26-2006, 04:29 PM
The Most Advanced, Most Powerful Country in the History of the Universe cannot master voting technology.

The USA not being able to count the fucking votes with precision is just one more failure condemning the entire political system as broken.

Some ideas:

Fuck e-voting entirely, it's obviously a bogus exercise designed to be compromised.

Paper ballots have to be serialized, like paper currency, so each ballot is unique (no duplicates). There is no personal info on the ballot which remains anonymous.

ballots are in two identical parts. One part is left at the voting booth to be counted, the other part is taken away by the voter as his record.

The voter makes his choices on a touchscreen, confirms the choice.

The voting machine prints out the two-identitcal-part ballot.

Since the vote is machine-printed, it's easily machine-readable by the counting machine with very high accuracy and very high speed. The OCR technology can be very simple because the characters printed and the names printed are fully defined in advance.

Because the voter has confirmed the ballot by reading the text, the machine-reading of the ballot must be of the human-readable text on the ballot like "OBAMA", and not reading of some human-unreadable symbols like a bar code (a rigged machine could print out OBAMA but with bar code for JEB :lol )

OK, let's move on to the next problem ... :lol

sandman
10-26-2006, 05:40 PM
The paper trail needs to run deep. A receipt for voters so that they know that the candidate they voted for received there votes. In 2004, there were numerous incidents of people reporting voting for Kerry in Ohio and other places only to have their votes switched to Dubya by the machine. A copy of that receipt that goes into a voting lock box so that the automatic tabulation on every machine can be verified at any time by counting the votes on the receipts on assigned locked boxes. There has to be some sort of check mechanism so that precient chiefs can verify that the total being reported by the machines can be backed up by both the automatic tabulations on individual e-voting machines and by the total of votes of receipts in locked-boxes. Finally, e-voting companies need to be put out of business and run by the non-partisan GAO or some on other non-partisan entity using open source software that can be checked for foulability.

Fully agree. The process is a mockery without integrity in the voting both. Now if we can only do something about the integrity of ALL of the candidates, and we will be good to go.

Nbadan
10-26-2006, 09:43 PM
Ah, well, anyway, the W.H. remains defiant

Cocky Democrats measuring drapes, says Bush


A DEFIANT George W.Bush yesterday taunted Democrats who, he said, were so sure of victory in the November 7 Congressional elections that they were already "measuring their drapes" for their new offices in the seat of power on Capitol Hill.

...

But Mr Bush said: "In Washington, people have already determined the outcome of the election, like it's over even before the people actually start voting. You know, they got them measuring their drapes."

He was referring to comments made by Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats' leader in the house who is in line to become the next speaker if her party wins power.

In a recent interview, she discussed the prospects of taking control, saying: "I'll have any suite I want."

Mr Bush said: "They're going over to the Capitol and saying well, 'My new office looks beautiful; I think I'm going to have this size drape there or this colour'. But the American people are going to decide, and they're going to decide this race based upon who is best to protect the American people."

The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20652719-601,00.html)

Measuring the drapes?!?

:lmao

Nbadan
10-27-2006, 05:10 PM
Three big clues the GOP/Karl Rove is planning on stealing the 06 election

1. "THE Math" - As discussed on Olberman last night. They talked about what he is doing but not why. Rove is spending RNC $$$ like water doing micropolls of the competetive races to find out exactly what the vote spread is. Why? He isnt planning to go to Vegas and bet his life's savings on the election results. Why does he need to know the final results with the margin of error? It wont affect his patented 72 hour get out the vote stratgy. He isnt going to say "We only need 72% of partsisan churches in this district to tell voters to go to the polls, but we need 96% of them to get out the vote in THAT district." He will mobilize the entire base,the way he always does. Polling might affect advertising decisions, but he doesnt need micropolling for that. The only reason to have mathematic accuracy is if he is planning to have votes shaved from the Democrat and added to the Republican and he needs to have it done so that the final tally will be within the margin of error of the pre-eletion and the exit polls, so that he and his henchmen will not be caught. If he were not planning to use election theft, he would be saving all those RNC $$$ for campaign ads and for more get out the vote efforts, the way that the Democrats are.

2. "Call me, Harold" - Did you know that this ad was created by a protegee of Rove and that the same guy did the infamous Cleland/Osama ad? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/26/politics/main... Recall that MSM idiot-pundits credited that ad with Cleland's defeat AND with the defeat of an incumbent Democratic governor with a double digit lead in the polls in Georgia, even though there was no ad showing the governor next to Osama. The idiot-pundits assumed that hick-redneck Georgians were just so plain dumb that they would fall for anything. The truth, we now learn, is that Diebold illegally inserted a patch called "robgeorgia.zip" into new E-voting machines in Democratic voting areas right before the election. The "Cleland/Osama" ads were dreamed up by Rove to offer plasible deniability when the final results did not match the pre-election polls. Those ads were so off the wall, that they captured national media attention. The national media's prejudices against southern voters caused them to miss the mark about what happened during the election. Instead of asking questions about Georgia's first E-voting experience, they blamed it on redneck voters. They cited an angry white man upswing in voters when the actual increase was in african-american women!

"Call me, Harold" - is more of the same. This ad was made to be bad. It is parody of an ad. It was designed to capture national attention so that MSM pundits would ask "Will voters in Tennessee be swayed by this kind of racist advertising?" It isnt supposed to change the polls now. However, after the election, when the final results are vastly different from pre-election polls, MSM pundits will say "Call me, Harold" obviously appealed to a certain racist element within Tennessee which was embarassed to express its concerns to pollsters but which was drawn to the polls in greater than expected numbers." They will laugh or frown at racist-hick-hillbilly Tennessee voters who fall for stupid ads, never questioning whether the final vote tally has anything to do with the votes actually cast.

At least, this is Karl Rove's plan. How do I know? Because if a dirty trick works once for Rove, he will keep repeating it.

3. Florida's 100 Foot from the Exit Poll Rule for Exit Pollsters - I already posted about this one. The state says it is going to appeal. Exit polls become unreliable at 100 feet from the polling place. Any time anyone forces exit pollsters 100 feet away from the polls, they are trying to cover up planned election fraud activity. They know that the final vote tally will not match the votes cast (or the exit polls, which generally match the votes cast with a fair degree of accuracy). In Ohio, 2004, Blackwell tried to keep the exit pollsters 100 feet away from the polls but they went to court. Had he suceeded, there would have been no proof of a stolen election. Rove and Blackwell almost got away with it in 2004. Florida is trying to get away with it this time. The common link between Florida and Ohio is Karl Rove.

gtownspur
10-27-2006, 11:04 PM
I'm ready dan!

Let's start the Revolution.

SA210
10-27-2006, 11:16 PM
"measuring drapes" :lol

gtownspur
10-27-2006, 11:22 PM
"The Nina, the Pinta, the santa maria!!"


"Now Testify!!"