Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

New attack on Kagan: She compared NRA to KKK

It's an explosive charge: Did Elena Kagan compare the NRA with the KKK?

So writes National Review, and the claim is likely to gain traction on the right, as part of the ongoing effort to paint her as a liberal anti-gun fanatic.

But the White House will argue that the claim is bunk.

The allegation is based on two documents recently released by the Clinton Library. They concern her analysis of mid-nineties product liability legislation passed by the GOP-controlled Congress and ultimately vetoed by Clinton. One provision in the proposal protected various types of nonprofits from liability claims.

One of the docs in question is a handwritten note Kagan, then in the White House counsel's office, took while discussing the act on the phone with a Department of Justice attorney. In it, she listed what she called two "bad guy orgs," the "NRA" and the "KKK."

The second doc is a memo from that Justice attorney to Kagan. In it, he informs her that he checked a list of nonprofit organizations that would be protected from liability under the act. He told her neither the NRA nor the KKK was on it.

National Review interprets this to mean that she'd asked him to check how the law would impact the NRA and the KKK -- implying she had drawn an equivalence. But the White House will argue that the larger context here shows that this isn't at all controversial.

Here's the White House version of events. At the time, two separate things were going on simultaneously. First, Clinton officials were concerned that the proposal would make it tougher for victims of gun violence to pursue liability claims. Officials viewed the bill as a major giveaway to the gun industry and the NRA. As part of analyzing the impact in this area, Clinton lawyers looked at how it would benefit the NRA.

In a second, separate development, Democratic members of Congress were worried that the act could protect the KKK and other hate groups from liability. Senator Patrick Leahy branded it the "KKK protection act." That prompted Clinton lawyers to analyze how it would impact such groups -- the KKK included.

There's nothing in the docs that draws an explicit comparison between the NRA and the KKK. The White House will argue that it's incidental that they happened to be listed next to each other -- they were only two of many groups that lawyers were examining in order to determine how they'd be impacted by the law.

It's perhaps unfortunate for the White House that she happened to list the two names side by side. But there's no evidence of any comparison, aside from the fact that they appeared next to each other on two pieces of paper amid a lengthy and wide-ranging analysis.

Check out the documents for yourself.

UPDATE, 3:21 p.m.: Edited slightly for accuracy.

By Greg Sargent  |  June 18, 2010; 3:10 PM ET
Categories:  Senate Republicans , Supreme Court  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: New DNC ad calls on GOPers to "stop apologizing to big oil"
Next: Van Hollen: Joe Barton revealed GOP's true stance on Big Oil

Comments

"Here's the White House version of events."

Just curious, Greg, who provided this to you?

Posted by: sbj3 | June 18, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

Don't tell him. Just say the magic words: Sharron Angle, and he will run away.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 18, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Any questions is fair. But, if there is nothing there, there is nothing there as seems to be the case.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 18, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Sue posted on the last thread about Michele Bachmann's challenger Tarryl Clark having an Internet ad up on Bachmann's statements supporting BP. The Clark campaign is trying to raise $50,000 today to get the ad up on T.V.

I bet The Plum Line readers can help out: http://tarrylclark.com/

Posted by: AllButCertain | June 18, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Typical liberal vomit queen. Quote a liberal and it is an "attack."

Posted by: VirginiaConservative | June 18, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Huh?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | June 18, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Conservative Virgin:

I will ask Joe Barton to apologize to you for what she researched.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 18, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

You . . .er . . . they might want to work on that defense a bit.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 18, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

That is just what they need; an Internet Sock Puppet, with the high-school ego name of Quarterback, giving them legal advice.

I still recall when that same online Sock Puppet said it was going to sue me for libel.

I guess Toon Town Lawyer was going to cite the precedent set, by the famous case of Ned Flanders V Homer Simpson.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 18, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Slave Sargent:
"One of the docs in question is a handwritten note Kagan, then in the White House counsel's office, took while discussing the act on the phone with a Department of Justice attorney. In it, she listed what she called two "bad guy orgs," the "NRA" and the "KKK.""

What is interesting and informative, (and you moonbats will all quite miss it),is the fact that Clinton White House looked at legislation from the perspective of how it would hurt "the Bad guys".

Now I'll grant you that the KKK, taken as a whole, is an organization that we could all do very well without,(which is why the Eff Bee Aye will NEVER stop subsidizing them via undercover agents/confidential informant pay); but NRA, moonbat hysteria notwithstanding, is a perfectly respectable and law-abiding organization dedicated to preserving and protecting ALL Americans' Second Amendment-protected civil liberties.

But the Kagan Kreature and her Clinton White House cronies viewed the NRA like Richard Nixon viewed the ACLU.

But that's okay, because you dummies will swear up and down that only Republican Administrations make Enemies Lists...

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 18, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

The NRA are just another Paranoid Cluster Of Right Wing Bed Wetters.

They Own All The Guns, But they are the ones that are always whining about being under attack.

I hope that they keep their guns well oiled, because we know that they all share their beds with them, and all their bedwetting could rust their high caliber pacifiers.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 18, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

At the risk of being perverse and having absolutely no data except personal bias to support it, I suspect that a very large proportion of KKK members also belong to the NRA. (And I would also suspect that a very large proportion of KKK members also eat mashed potatoes -- believe me, I am aware of the potential logical fallacy.)

I have, of course, no reason to believe or even imagine that the converse would also be true, although I do disagree with the NRA's philosophy that suspected terrorists and illegal immigrants should be permitted, if not actually actively encouraged, to stock up with semi-automatic weapons before being deported.

Posted by: edallan | June 18, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Lawyers are typically told to extrapolate to the most wild degree and then pull back from that to show potential extent of a law. No big deal. To see how legislation would affect liability of a "non-profits" such a the KKK or the NRA who actually work well beyond non profit status is no bog deal.

Posted by: cadam72 | June 18, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

I did not realize the KKK had so many defenders! I am not offended by their comparison to the NRA, the KKK deserves the association!

Note its pretty clear she was listing groups which might be protected by the liability change.

Since this was a note written while on the phone, no one claiming this is an official enemies list is doing anything but lying, or is just so paranoid that it has driven them insane. The only thing this list implies is something to do with the legislation under discussion, and only involves personnel notes apparently.

If you look at my personnel notes, you might find all kinds of people being associated with Satan, Nazis etc, but the associations were hardly serious. This is weak even by Wing Nut standards.

Posted by: Muddy_Buddy_2000 | June 18, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

I did not realize the KKK had so many defenders! I am not offended by their comparison to the NRA, the KKK deserves the association!

Note its pretty clear she was listing groups which might be protected by the liability change.

Since this was a note written while on the phone, no one claiming this is an official enemies list is doing anything but lying, or is just so paranoid that it has driven them insane. The only thing this list implies is something to do with the legislation under discussion, and only involves personnel notes apparently.

If you look at my personnel notes, you might find all kinds of people being associated with Satan, Nazis etc, but the associations were hardly serious. This is weak even by Wing Nut standards.

Posted by: Muddy_Buddy_2000 | June 18, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

"is just so paranoid that it has driven them insane"

There seems to be a lot of that virus going around lately.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 18, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

The NRA is far worse than the KKK in my view. The KKK was ultimately exposed as a purveyor of hate, when people across this country witnessed in the media the cruel and violent supression of the black man.

The NRA on the other hand operates behind a cloak of legitimacy given to it by the very legitimate interests of marksmen and hunters. The real money behind the NRA comes from gun trafficers. These are individuals whoes business is selling guns to criminals and criminal organizations. Whether directly or through straw purchasers, they are a very significant economic force. The revenue produced is not reported to the IRS, and no taxes are paid. They sell guns to drug gangs, and other organized crime elements, who in turn train these weapons upon the brave people in our FBI, and state and local police departments.

Make no mistake, this is big business, and it has nothing to do with hunting or marksmanship. Hunters don't use AK-47s or MAC-10s to hunt. If we don't do something soon to stop this criminal cabal, we will one day have to call up the National Guard to defend our cities and towns. This is already the case in Puerto Rico, and may soon be coming to a town near you.

Posted by: capmbillie | June 18, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like Kagan was spot on.

Which is making all the white hood wearing NRA members go ballistic.

Posted by: WillSeattle | June 18, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Moonbat capmbillie:
"The NRA is far worse than the KKK in my view."

Maybe you shopuld stop looking at the world from out of your rectum.

"The real money behind the NRA comes from gun trafficers. These are individuals whoes business is selling guns to criminals and criminal organizations."

You got any evidence to support that?
Many have tried to find any evidence of that, and all have failed. The "bent" gun dealers are few and far between and invariably are "small time", not this imaginary shadow organization rivalling the Cali drug cartel.
Like I said, your vision is from the same perspective as your rectum, so what you see is what's in the bottom of the toilet bowl.

BTW, cud-chewer, the NRA advicates that all citizens' RTKBA be protected...even black, brown, female and homosexual citizens.

"If we don't do something soon to stop this criminal cabal, we will one day have to call up the National Guard to defend our cities and towns."

What was that other slobbering moonbat saying about "paranoid bed-wetters"...?

Anyhoo, sport, I'd be very cautious about calling up the National Guard to shoot down your fellow citizens.
It might very likely be you who gets shot down...a lot of Guard members own their own personal shooting irons...and are NRA members TOO!

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 18, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Bilgeman wrote: Maybe you should stop looking at the world from out of your rectum.

As a former NRA member myself, I believe that I have the evidence. I also spent three years in the US Army between 1969 and 1972. I shot expert on the range with an M14 and M16, as I had done many times in competition as an NRA member. I strongly support the rights of hunters and marksmen, but I don't support the sale of military weapons to criminals. Why? Because I have many family members in law enforecment, and I don't like the NRA arming criminals with these types of weapons. All I want is some common sense controls of military weapons and hand guns, which pose a threat to every decent person in our society.

Posted by: capmbillie | June 18, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

The truth never has gotten in the way of the conservatives believing and saying what they want.

Posted by: lgj3140 | June 18, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

"As a former NRA member myself, I believe that I have the evidence. I also spent three years in the US Army between 1969 and 1972. I shot expert on the range with an M14 and M16, as I had done many times in competition as an NRA member. I strongly support the rights of hunters and marksmen, but I don't support the sale of military weapons to criminals. Why? Because I have many family members in law enforecment, and I don't like the NRA arming criminals with these types of weapons. All I want is some common sense controls of military weapons and hand guns, which pose a threat to every decent person in our society."

Posted by: capmbillie | June 18, 2010 5:33 PM

As a current NRA member, 29 year veteran of the USAF, I have also shot expert on the rifle range with the M-16 and shoot in IDPA matches. Please explain where in the 2nd Amendment it states ANYTHING about hunting? The 2nd Amendment is about defending our homes from external threats and a tyrannical government. And it was written specifically so that we, the citizens, have the exact same arms as our military. Do your homework. And, by the way, my Bushmaster is not a military firearm, it is not select fire capable. Save the b/s for the liberal sheep...you won't win this argument.

Posted by: Disgusted | June 18, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

what if kagan is another obama mistake...
what do we do then...

Posted by: DwightCollins | June 18, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

"As a former NRA member myself, I believe that I have the evidence. I also spent three years in the US Army between 1969 and 1972. I shot expert on the range with an M14 and M16, as I had done many times in competition as an NRA member. I strongly support the rights of hunters and marksmen, but I don't support the sale of military weapons to criminals. Why? Because I have many family members in law enforecment, and I don't like the NRA arming criminals with these types of weapons. All I want is some common sense controls of military weapons and hand guns, which pose a threat to every decent person in our society."

Posted by: capmbillie | June 18, 2010 5:33 PM

As a current NRA member, 29 year veteran of the USAF, I have also shot expert on the rifle range with the M-16 and shoot in IDPA matches. Please explain where in the 2nd Amendment it states ANYTHING about hunting? The 2nd Amendment is about defending our homes from external threats and a tyrannical government. And it was written specifically so that we, the citizens, have the exact same arms as our military. Do your homework. And, by the way, my Bushmaster is not a military firearm, it is not select fire capable. Save the b/s for the liberal sheep...you won't win this argument.

Posted by: Disgusted | June 18, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Remember to save those scribbled notes you make when talking on the phone. Especially when you're being paid to think in hypotheticals, to extrapolate to the extreme.

Those scribbled notes will disqualify you from the job you want 20 years down the road.

According to Republicans, you shouldn't be able to sue the KKK for lynchings or church burnings because they're a non-profit religious organization.

Posted by: thebobbob | June 18, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

So why aren't you demanding your own personal Nukes. After all those are just "Arms", and you have the right to keep them. Don't you, gutless right wing bedwetter.

Clowns like you would run the other way, if a civilian defense were ever called on to defend the nation.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 18, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Slave capmbillie:
"As a former NRA member myself,"

Says you...but that's alright, I'm former NRA myself. I let my membership expire from a combination of "mailbox fatigue" and the fact that the NRA is a little too "flexible" on the principles,(ie: willing to compromise with hoplophobes, moonbats, and the would-be dictators who sponsor them). The GOA is a little more staunch in defending the RTKBA.

"I also spent three years in the US Army between 1969 and 1972. I shot expert on the range with an M14 and M16, as I had done many times in competition as an NRA member."

Again, says you. But again, that's alright, I'm a former Reagan Marine grunt myself.

"I strongly support the rights of hunters and marksmen,"

Sure you do, pal...suuuuure you do.

"...but I don't support the sale of military weapons to criminals."

Who does? The NRA does not and never has, despite the moonbat lies you've internalized and are re=puking out on us here.

"Why? Because I have many family members in law enforecment, and I don't like the NRA arming criminals with these types of weapons."

Well, hey, I have many family members who are being actively sought BY law enforcement. Do you have any contact information for this wonderful "Arm the Criminals" Program operated by the NRA?
I;m sure Uncle Lefty would be thrilled to get a spiffy new machine gun at the NRA's next "Give a Thug a Gun Day".
Oh...you DO NOT have that contact info, huh?

"All I want is some common sense controls of military weapons and hand guns, which pose a threat to every decent person in our society"

Take what you "want", fold it five ways, and wipe your rectum with it. Maybe it will clear your field of vision.
OUR civil rights are not subject to what YOU want, sport.

And if you think that I didn't immediately notice that when challenged to produce evidence to back up your allegations against NRA selling guns to criminals, you responded with absolutely no evidence whatsoever...just bluff. bluster and BS.

Lame. Balk. FAIL...

Ex-Private Moonbat, you are Dis-MISSED!

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 18, 2010 7:34 PM | Report abuse

They are right-wingers. All they have left politically is attack, smear and character assassination. Or haven't you been paying attention? That is all they have offered since 1968.

There was one exception, Newter Gingrich's Contract On America. That produced the dot com bomb, a recession or two and a court system that has decided big business has more civil rights than living, breathing Americans, that corporations can run government better than the people or elected officials, and that clean water and air are just bad science.

If nothing else, Elena Kagan will be imminently more qualified as a human being than the last five or six justices nominated by 40, 41 and 43, three of the worst Presidents in United States history.

Posted by: BigTrees | June 18, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

NRA - Another right-wing hate group.

Their lies include the myth that gun ownership will protect you. Homes with guns become targets. Thieves know that guns sell faster on the street than anything else after drugs.

When was the last time you heard of a gun owner stopping a crime? You hear about more NRA and gun owners shooting themselves, or a family member, or a stupid gun owner leaving a gun where a kid can get it and kill themselves.

NRA - another term for stoopid right-winger who left their brain in someone else's wives' bedroom.

Posted by: BigTrees | June 18, 2010 8:26 PM | Report abuse


"Armed tattoo shop owner stops 3 armed robbers "


June 16


The owner of a tattoo parlor reportedly used his handgun to fend off three armed robbers.

Police say that at about 6pm, a trio of armed robbers entered the West End Tattoo parlor in Atlanta, Georgia, and threatened the owner as part of a robbery attempt. The owner, fearing for his safety, reportedly grabbed his self defense handgun and fired at his attackers, fatally wounding one and sending the others fleeing. Police are seeking the two surviving suspects, and believe that one of the suspect may have been wounded. No injuries to the tattoo shop owner, customers, or bystanders were reported.


http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-18149-SelfDefense-Examiner~y2010m6d16-Armed-tattoo-shop-owner-stops-3-armed-robbers

"Bystander with gun stops Palm Bay bank robbery"

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime/bystander-with-gun-stops-palm-bay-bank-robbery-651230.html

Posted by: screwjob16 | June 18, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

The KKK is a not a non profit because they want to avoid the FOIA and even before that they were not a nonprofit.

Then you push this gun industry would benefit form a bill protection nonprofit volunteers.

Then theres also the fact you cannot source that Patrick Leahy did in fact call it the KKK protection act.

How about you get on to the fact instead of full on spinning.

Posted by: Chase8 | June 18, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Bilgeman said: Well, hey, I have many family members who are being actively sought BY law enforcement.

My comments are not directed at criminals or people who sympathize with criminals. I am trying to appeal to law abiding citizens who support law enforcement and do not want criminals to be better armed than our policemen.

During the 1930s guys like Al Capone and Bugs Moran ran the city of Chicago, and paid the police department for protection. It all went well for them until a public outcry caused the Feds to descend on them. J. Edgar Hoover reorganized the FBI overnight, and guys like Elliot Ness and Melvin Purvis who could not be paid off eventually arrested these thugs and put them behind bars.

Washinton DC is now what you might describe as a free fire zone. The NRA thinks that arming the citizens of DC is the solution to this problem. How ignorant is that? Let's just see how much longer it will take for people to say enough.

Posted by: capmbillie | June 18, 2010 8:52 PM | Report abuse

SHE LISTED TWO BAD GUY ORGS. SHE LISTED TWO BAD GUY ORGS. SHE LISTED TWO BAD GUY ORGS. SHE LISTED TWO BAD GUY ORGS. What is there to argue about?

Posted by: chatard | June 18, 2010 9:24 PM | Report abuse

"Two Bad Guys" ~ well, that shur 'nuff looks like the old smoking gun eh!

Frankly this Kagan gal is going to equate nursing mothers, DUIs, retirees and young children.

No surprises there.

Just where does Obama come up with these moonbats anyway? Do they have a secret clubhouse somewhere or what.

Posted by: muawiyah | June 18, 2010 9:31 PM | Report abuse

Alleged Veteran moonbat capmbillie:
"My comments are not directed at criminals or people who sympathize with criminals."

Your comments are directed in the same direction you are looking...to the bottom of the toilet bowl.

"I am trying to appeal to law abiding citizens who support law enforcement and do not want criminals to be better armed than our policemen."

And you expect us to believe that you have family members in law enforcement?

Hey, sport, have you taken a gander at what Podunk PD SWAT Team is humping? M-4 select-fire carbines and Heckler und Koch MP5 full-auto machine-pistols.
And you think that some small time stick-up artist with a semi-auto AK, or some clown who goes defective in his house with his deer rifle is better armed than the po-leece, huh?

"During the 1930s guys like Al Capone and Bugs Moran ran the city of Chicago, and paid the police department for protection."

Work with me here, sport. If the Mob can buy off the Fuzz, then why would you WANT the Fuzz to have the biggest and bestest guns?
Additionally, if the Fuzz are in the Mob's pocket, what purpose do you think some gun-control law is going to accomplish vis-a-vis keeping guns out of criminals' hands?

I'll wait for the answer...

"Washinton DC is now what you might describe as a free fire zone."

You're WAY behind the times, homes. I lived in the Metro area during the late 1980's...when crack cocaine was first marketed,(and my boy Rayful Edmunds was selling Hizzonner Marion Barry his Peruvian Marching Powder...Mayor Barry had a chemistry degree, and used to cook down his own rock). DeeCee today, compared to back then, is like Provo,Utah.

"The NRA thinks that arming the citizens of DC is the solution to this problem. How ignorant is that? "

Actually NRA DIDN'T. NRA did not want to bring the Heller case before the SCOTUS. Look it up...NRA wasn;t part of the Heller brief.

But how ignorant is it? The Supreme Court essentially agreed with NRA's rhetoric.

And....STILL no evidence offered to back up your assertion.

Quit while you're ahead, moonbat slave...go find yourself a nice corner of the barnyard and a patch of grass to munch on.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 18, 2010 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Bilgeman ~ for a real laugh riot check out the news stories on Bucky Phillips and how he managed to tie up a major portion of the Pennsylvania and New York state police forces with little more than mother wit and a small caliber pistol.

(NOTE: There are much greater charges against this guy, but the big story involved a multi-state chase where he played the cops for fools).

(NOTE: Bucky is one of those guys who is probably, more or less, an iriquois Indian of one kind or the other. He's really, really, really tough. He also proves that guns aren't the whole story)

Posted by: muawiyah | June 18, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

"The 2nd Amendment is about defending our homes from external threats and a tyrannical government"

Please point to where the Second Amendment says anything about tyrannical government. The only reference to government I see in there refers to the need to SUPPORT "the security of a free State." And indeed, this is how the "well-regulated militia" was used in the early republic -- to suppress armed insurrections like the Whiskey Rebellion.

Posted by: mattcliff | June 18, 2010 9:50 PM | Report abuse

"Please explain where in the 2nd Amendment it states ANYTHING about hunting? The 2nd Amendment is about defending our homes from external threats and a tyrannical government"

Please point to where the Second Amendment says anything about tyrannical government. The only reference to government I see in there refers to the need to SUPPORT "the security of "a free State." And indeed, this is how the "well-regulated militia" was used in the early republic -- to suppress armed insurrections like the Whiskey Rebellion.

Posted by: mattcliff | June 18, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans are desperate and thus doing desperate things, like trying to equate the NRA and KKK in Kagan's mind. Wouldn't that be nice? To them, yes; that's why wish-fulfillment is magically happening before our eyes. In their crazed attempt to demonize President Obama and oppose every good thing he does or suggests doing, Republicans are painting themselves as crazies (as in their boot-licking allegiance to BP) and against the vast majority of Americans. This Kagan smear is only the latest example.

Posted by: jim32 | June 18, 2010 9:57 PM | Report abuse

@MattCliff ...

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."
-James Madison

Don't know why they changed around the 2nd amendment in congress, but this was the original drafted one. The right to bear arms is a separate right.

Anyways just posted that one to show its a separate right and again its use the word free country(or state in the actual BoR).

Posted by: Chase8 | June 19, 2010 8:27 AM | Report abuse

First this:

"So writes National Review, and the claim is likely to gain traction on the right, as part of the ongoing effort to paint her as a liberal anti-gun fanatic."

Then this:

"There's nothing in the docs that draws an explicit comparison between the NRA and the KKK...

It's perhaps unfortunate for the White House that she happened to list the two names side by side. But there's no evidence of any comparison, aside from the fact that they appeared next to each other on two pieces of paper amid a lengthy and wide-ranging analysis."
_______________________________

So, this will gain traction despite the total lack of evidence to support it. Two words on the same page. That is all?

Posted by: lostinthemiddle | June 19, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company