Open Letter to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd

openletter

salutation

We have read your new policy on asylum seeker boat arrivals. It is an audacious policy which no doubt took your colleagues and the rest of the ALP by surprise.

Without necessarily supporting what you did we understand why you made the arrangements you did with PNG Prime Minister Peter O’ Neill. In that one gesture you apparently shored up your racist and bigoted constituency in marginal seats, wedged Tony Abbott and his three-word bogan slogans and attempted to appease those ethical and compassionate people with genuine concerns about unsafe boats full of asylum seekers attempting hazardous voyages.

We will not go into the details of the policy. It has been thoroughly reported by the media somewhat starved of controversy in the last week or so, along with the usual commentary from the usual media suspects such as conservative commentator Paul Sheehan, who has spent the last three years telling people what a dreadful government we have but has suddenly discovered that asylum seekers sometimes drown, so desperate are they to find a safe place to live.

We are somewhat surprised that a country your government’s own DFAT travel advice website has warned Australian travellers is a security risk should be deemed acceptable for asylum seekers as a place of settlement. There seems to be a bit of careless racism implicit in that.

So while you tick those boxes off may we remind you that the ongoing hysteria about asylum seekers is not going to go away. That same constituency which you think you have placated will continue to hate and vilify new arrivals, no matter how they arrived in this country.

  • They will continue to defame the small population of Muslims in Australia, those who were born here as well as those amongst the new arrivals.
  • They will continue to abuse women and men in religious garments in the street because they “dress differently”.
  • They will target the 13% of the population who either emigrated from Asia or who are the descendants of those of Asian descent who have lived in Australia for many years, along with the many Asian students here for an education.
  • They will continue to racially abuse people, including children, on buses and trains because they “look different” or “speak different”.
  • These individuals will continue to gather in vile hate groups on social media, and to infest the comments columns of newspapers.

So Kevin we need an undertaking from you that you are going to address this xenophobia, because you and the government are the only ones who can do so.

We want an undertaking that you and your MPs will explicitly address and overturn the unfounded fears and festering hatred of this misguided sector of the electorate, because you are supposed to govern on behalf of normal Australians, not just expediently at election time for the passing whims of the haters.

Then we may again be a fit country to receive and welcome newcomers to a safe and secure life, because at the moment we are not.

In anticipation

theantibogan

E mail: theantibogan@gmail.com

www.theantibogan.wordpress.com

Twitter:     @theantibogan

67 thoughts on “Open Letter to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd

  1. I can’t help but be reminded of the 2nd verse of our national anthem… “For those who come across the seas, we’ve boundless plains to share” is apparently not an influence in policy decisions.

  2. This won’t even get past the gate keepers and soil Kevins eyes, nice sentiment but I think people get more done by acting on the things mentioned like this page for example than any politician ever will, or until one with a back bone gets elected into a position of power and influence, but I am not holding my breath on that score!

  3. Rudd is lower than shark shit and lower than Abbot. Given Abbot is a confessed Catholic I would like to hear what other Catholics think about this including Cardinal Pell and the Pope. Aren’t they meant to show compassion to people like asylum seekers And what about the likes of Fred Nile and the other God Botherers. What a disgrace they all are.

    • Rudd alledges that he’s a Christian too. He even cited the Bible as the reason he got rid of the Pacific Solution. Now he’s backflipped baying for people smugglers’ blood and weeping crocodile tears for their ‘victims’.

      He’s just as inconsistent as those who say that the asylum seekers are rich but are at the same time economic migrants. They clearly have no idea that the average petty bourgeoisie from the East are not going to swap a cushy life with servants for Newstart Allowance unless there is a real threat to themselves and their families.

  4. I, briefly, savoured the return of Kev as PM… not because I disliked Jools, quite to the contrary. Just so happened that I dread what would become of this country were the Mad Monk put in charge. However, I now understand just why Kev was dumped in the first place and why half the ALP frontbench resigned overnight. Kevin, just like Tony, will do and say anything simply for the sake of gaining power. That makes him just as dangerous as Tony.
    I also loathe Campbell Newman. But Campbell actually made ssome sense in response to this evil piece of policy, by predicting that refugees settled in PNG will make the move to Australia anyway (because why the Hell would anyone sane want to settle in the corrupt and lawless failed state of PNG?) by illegally crossing the Torres Strait from PNG to Queensland. I agree totally with Campbell, and that had occurred to me before I even came across his opinion on this. Such a migration will bring a host of new problems with it, ranging from public health issues such as the possible spread of treatment-resistant TB (prevalent in PNG) by undocumented migrants in Australia, through to the possible exploitation of undocumented migrants as cheap labour. Better to settle people in Australia to begin with, and then at least you know what you’re getting. Just shows that the rednecks haven’t thought this one through properly.

  5. Consider me signed.

    There was a photo of a woman in the news today. (You’ve probably all seen her and know the one I mean.) She has her head in her hands distraught at hearing she won’t be allowed to live here. I wonder who she is? What is her name? I wonder what her story is and what she’s fleeing, what she could add to our community and how we’d get on with her if we got the chance. She is a person. A woman who risked her life on a perilous voyage that has killed many like her and, yes, probably spent a lot of money trying to make a new life for herself and perhaps her family. She is an individual person, an Iranian asylum seeker. And I’d like us to give her at least half a flippin’ chance before we subject her to, well, who knows what? I’d like to know what happens to her now and into the future as well. Our government is using that image, of her, as propaganda. A deterrent and a warning. Are you afraid of her? Is she so scary? I think she and we deserve better.

  6. Found it funny that APP’s Andrew Philips criticised the Rudd plan as “racist and supremacist”. Maybe the APP is looking for the left vote?! Or perhaps their policy is still “torpedo the boats” invented by Nick Folkes. Nick “where’s Darrin” folkes is still to make a statement on the png proposal , he probably was irritated that there were anti labor protestors in balmain yesterday than he could ever muster up.

  7. At least both sides of politics agree that we must take action to stop the boats. Australia for it’s small population size lets in many more refugees per year than any other comparable country. Look at a country like Japan, many times our population and we are letting in more refugees than them. Look at Canada, bigger population than ours same deal.

    Our population is at estimate 2013 : 24 million. Australia is never going to solve the worlds refugee problem without basically becoming a third world country ourselves!

    We need to maintain a strong immigration policy with skilled migrants and maintain social cohesion and respect the heritage of this country.

    New Holland should not become the end point for all refugee journeys world wide.

    • Comparing to Japan is a bit of an odd compairson. We don’t want Japan’s deeply entrenched racism, thank you very much, where no matter how long you’ve been there, even if you’re born there, you are foreign if you come from foreign stock (And won’t be allowed to vote).

      “Australia for it’s small population size lets in many more refugees per year than any other comparable country.”

      That’s not true. No matter which way you count the numbers, Australia is not number 1. Source:
      http://www.asrc.org.au/media/documents/australia-vs-rest-world-refugees-asylum-seekers___.pdf

      We are at best 12th, if we ignore all non-industrial countries, and only count by asylum seeker applications.

      “Our population is at estimate 2013 : 24 million. Australia is never going to solve the worlds refugee problem without basically becoming a third world country ourselves!”

      True. That’s why, thankfully, no one is suggesting we solve all refugee problems by ourselves, right now. We do this over time, with the asisstance of all the world’s developed nations. In the meantime we help a lot of people and ignore those who use the nirvana fallacy (You didn’t save everyone, therefore it’s worthless)

      ” respect the heritage of this country.”

      What does that even mean? How is the heritage of this country not being respected?

      “New Holland should not become the end point for all refugee journeys world wide.”

      Thankfully, it’s not. See above source. Most refugees do not come to Australia because we are far away, and surrounded by ocean.

    • How about some Ideas Terry, unless you got no ideas? As it easy to claim you got ideas without actually having ideas..

    • Taken from http://theaimn.com/2013/07/28/lets-pretend/

      “1. ONSHORE PROCESSING
      ■I think all processing of refugee/asylum applications should be carried out onshore. 80 or 90% of Australia’s asylum seekers arrive by plane with valid papers, usually a tourist visa and simply overstay before applying for asylum. They are processed onshore why not the rest? Australia is the only industrialized country in the world (out of some 44 countries) to have offshore detention centres. Why is that?
      ■Onshore processing is cheaper. The way we do it now is very expensive. The cost of re-establishing offshore processing on Nauru alone has been estimated at $2billion over 4 years. Budget papers reveal the cost of Australia’s immigration detention system was estimated at $800 million in 2011-12. With approximately 7,000 people in detention, it cost Australians $110,000 per asylum seeker in detention in 2011-12, and in 2012 the overall cost rose suddenly some 500 million. Now with Rudd’s NG solution the price per asylum seeker has suddenly skyrocketed. Who knows how much it will cost from now on?
      ■Onshore processing would be a large step towards ensuring that Australia (currently a member of the UN Security Council) meets its UN obligations in respect of refugees and asylum seekers. Although offshore processing is not in itself a contravention of these obligations we are obliged to provide adequate safeguards including the provision of humane living conditions and an effective regime for the prompt processing of refugee claims. It has been argued that neither of these exists on either Nauru or Manus Island.

      2. DETENTION

      Australia’s system of mandatory detention of asylum seekers without time limits has been found on numerous occasions to breach Australia’s international obligations not to subject anyone to arbitrary detention.
      ■I think all asylum seekers should be detained for processing at a centrally located processing centre or centres in Canberra or wherever the relevant Federal bureaucracy is located. This/these facilities need to be secure but not behind barbed wire. There are many less intimidating and stigmatizing options to barbed wire fences. A central location and high profile is important for both symbolic and practical reasons of access.
      ■I think they should be held there for no longer than two weeks; just long enough to complete the initial application and to have any health or support needs assessed. After that time they should be moved to regional refugee centres centrally located in one or more of the State Capitals where they will have assigned caseworkers to whom they should report regularly while awaiting a decision on whether their application for asylum is to be granted or not.
      ■I think that if an applicant has family or close friends in Australia they should be able to choose to live with them while their application is being processed.
      ■I think that if it is assessed that an asylum seeker’s application will take more than four months to determine, the applicant should be entitled to work.
      ■I think they should be offered free housing, but should provide for them selves if they have enough money. Emergency medical and dental procedures and prescriptions should be provided for minimal cost. All asylum seeker children should receive the same medical coverage as Australian children.
      ■I think that the Regional refugee centres should provide accommodation for the asylum seekers along with childcare, recreation facilities and a central reception office.
      ■I think that asylum seekers should be required to visit the reception office regularly to receive their allowance, news on their application and for need and risk assessment.
      ■I think that their caseworkers should make these assessments and refer clients for medical care, counselling and other services.
      ■I think that in the regional reception centres residents should be free to come and go as they please.
      ■I think that all asylum seekers awaiting a decision should be encouraged to participate in some form of organized activity such as English lessons if they are not working.
      ■I think although there may be special cases, in general it should be for an applicant to decide whether or not to speak to the press.

      How am I doing so far? Does it sound like a lot of impractical hippy rubbish that only a Greens supporter with no idea of what it takes to govern, could dream up? I’m afraid there’s quite a bit more in similar vein about the categorization of asylum seekers, treatment of those whose applications have been rejected and their rights to appeal negative assessments, but I’ve already used too much space.

      Luckily I don’t have to write it all down. You can all look for yourself. I have a little surprise for you. I’m not making it up. What I’ve described so far is the way they do this in Sweden. Apparently they were so naïve as to just go ahead and try to do the right thing rather than waiting for the focus groups and party strategists to tell them what they could get away with without losing votes in the marginals. It’s all written in a paper that you can find here http://www.fabian.org.au/940.asp along with the footnotes and the author’s credentials.

      Of course Sweden is not Australia and as is well known they have their own problems with xenophobia, racism and the rise of fascism not unrelated to immigration and refugee intake at the moment. Grant Mitchell, the very well qualified author of the paper I’ve been plagiarizing has some very interesting things to say about the differences and similarities between the two countries. But I have a few comparative figures of my own.

      In 2010 Sweden received about 30,000 asylum seekers. In 2010 Sweden’s population was 9.18 million. That is one asylum seeker for every 306 Swedish citizens. In 2010 Australia’s population was 20.85 million and it received in total 8250 applications for asylum. About half of these were the boat arrivals that get our politicians so hot and bothered. Looking at total numbers only we find that is one asylum seeker for every 2527 Australian citizens.

      The number of Swedish asylum seekers in 2010 was about 8.5 times greater per capita than in Australia. However in 2010 Sweden held most applicants for asylum in mandatory detention for no longer than 14 days. In 2010 Australia held them for an average of 224 days. In the same year France, approx 49,000 asylum seekers (one for every 1260 French citizens) held them for an average of 10.7 days and Canada, roughly 22,000 asylum seekers (roughly one for every 1500 Canadian citizens) held them for an average of 8 days.

      The numbers, both total and boat arrivals have shifted since 2010. 2012 saw 17,202 Australian arrivals by sea. This year’s figure looks set to be even higher. However numbers are increasing elsewhere also and the comparisons remain valid although totals and ratios have shifted. Why is it that in Sweden, indeed nearly everywhere else in the developed world the numbers of arrivals are much larger but the problem seems to be smaller?

      In 2007 Labor had the real possibility of separating itself from the coalition on this issue and doing what is right. Instead it chose to engage in a pissing contest with them to see which party could convince a severely misled electorate that they could be the meanest to a tiny group of the world’s most vulnerable people. I support the commonly expressed view that since little Johnny the Rat pulled his Tampa number on Kim Beasley and caused him to lose the ‘unloseable’ election, the ALP has lacked the courage to confront the ever-present undercurrent of racism that flows in so many Australians.

      Could it be that the Rudd/Gillard governments have got themselves into this appalling mess because they didn’t have the courage to confront a relatively small number of shock jock fuelled racists primarily in Sydney’s western suburbs by telling them a few simple truths?

      Like, for example:
      ■Persecuting asylum seekers who arrive (perfectly legally) by boat will make no difference to the number of burkas and brown and black faces that alarm you by living and working in your neighbourhood. Irregular boat arrivals are a small percentage of Australia’s total asylum seeker applications and nearly all of them are genuine refugees fleeing persecution as opposed to the large majority of arrivals by air where nearly all of them are found to be not genuine.
      ■Numbers of asylum seekers arriving in Australia are tiny both in total and on a per capita basis. Australia ranks in the mid forties in the rank ordering of favoured destinations for asylum seekers.

      And so on. You all know the script.

      Now it is clear that the MSM has complicated the dissemination of this message with its constant negative messaging so the blame for the woefully low level of awareness of asylum seeker realities is not entirely with the government. Overall I think the Rudd/Gillard governments have done a passably good job in difficult circumstances and I agree with Paul Strangio that history will probably judge them (particularly Gillard) better than their current critics on the other side of the ‘House’ and in the MSM.

      However the mess they have created around the issue that AA nominates, asylum seekers, is all their own doing. The virtually indistinguishable policies of both the major parties on this issue are a stain on Australia’s history. It did not have to be so. I hope the above demonstrates this.

      What causes good and intelligent people, some of whom even aspire to make Australia a fairer, more just place, to conceive and enact such discriminatory, cruel legislation?

      A final note:

      The failure of the Rudd/Gillard governments to put in place a principled, economically defensible and workable asylum seeker policy is worthy of discussion but what really alarms me is the unexamined, unquestioning, tacit acceptance of this and other substantial policy glitches made by these Labor governments by so many that post on the altogether too ‘relaxed and comfortable’ centre-left sites that dot the fifth estate. In difficult times critical examination of the entire political landscape is a necessary pre-requisite to understanding what is happening to us. Consistently overlooking the not insubstantial failings of one of the three major features in our political landscape (Labor, Coalition, MSM) is not helpful to promoting understanding and perhaps appropriate action.”

      How’s that for ideas Terry?

  8. Kevin Rudd, clear up the crud…..Kev for PM, best move ever made by a politician, send the welfare leeches packing, 85% of the illegal scum are on long term welfare, get rid of them, save our own homeless.

    • And how exactly do you help your local homeless? I can find you a homelessness support service eager for your money and/or time if you like?

      And any evidence the majority of asylum seekers are on long term welfare?

        • So for more than five years, meaning they would have arrived by 2007 at the latest-more likely to be earlier, correct?

          At that point, Labour was not in power, and that meant temporary protection visas. These visas, amongst other restrictions, did not guarantee permanent residency, had to be renewed each three years, and did not provide any language classes.

          Tell me, TZ, how does one find a job in Australia when they cannot guarantee they will still be in the country in three years, and you do not receive any assistance to learn the language? I know people on temporary partner visas (Which do guarantee permanent residency if the relationship is maintained for two years) have similar difficulty finding work-employers are reluctant to employ anyone who has the word “temporary” associated with their visa.

          Incidentally-this system? It’s the one Tony Abbot wants to bring back.

          And I’m happy to make the same offer to you, TZ, regarding homeless support. IF you want to help the homeless, I can find you a service eager for your money and time. Just let me know your state.

        • Hey you wanted evidence, I offered some and now you are rejecting it? Well on page 26 it shows the employment rate of 4 groups of people. If you cry foul for the ones that have been here for 4-5 years, just take any of the other groups with an even higher rate of Centrelink payments then… Are you fine with 88% being on centrelink after 3 years? 84.8% for those who only been here 4 years? ALP had already been in power by then.

        • “Hey you wanted evidence, I offered some and now you are rejecting it?”

          No, I’m interpreting it. You mention high unemployment rates after 5 years, I point out part of the reasons why this may be the case. You were doing the exact same-interpreting the data.

          “Are you fine with 88% being on centrelink after 3 years? 84.8% for those who only been here 4 years? ALP had already been in power by then.”

          No, I’m not happy about this. But you’re not reading the entire article. You’re just seeing what you want to see. Like this line mentioned on page 26:
          “Length of time in Australia analysis indicates that the proportion of
          Humanitarian entrants’ households in receipt of Centrelink payments decreases slowly over five years. ”

          So centrelink involvement by humanitarian entrants decreases over time. Makes sense, people need more assistance when they arrive, and less as time goes on. True, we need to figure out why they’re taking so long to leave Centrelink payments, but it doesn’t show a long standing problem. Esepcailyl considering this line:

          “It must be understood that Centrelink payments are not only unemployment benefits but also include Youth Allowance, Austudy and child care rebates. ”

          So “centrelink benefits” doesn’t mean “They’re all leaching off the system, not wanting to work”-it can mean “These are people trying to study to improve their chances at finding work, or accessing childcare so that they can access work and/or study”

          Especially considering your complaint lies with people being in Australia for 3-4 years, having youth allowance would be fairly standard-wouldn’t it? Between school and higher education, 3-4 years of study wouldn’t be too much to expect, would it?

          It’s also pointing out that while the employment rate among humanitarian entrants is low (But that too grows over time-particularly after two years being in Australia), the unemployment rate is actually much lower than the employment rate, usually less than half the employment rate. The big reason a lot of humanitarian entrants are not working is because of other commitments, including, according to the report: “retired,
          caring duties, full time study, voluntary work”

          So not “They’re not working and not wanting work” but “They’re caring for family members/studying/engaging in volunteering work/retired”

          The section on employment (page 33) provides further evidence. If you look at Chart 25 you actually find the most common employment situations for humanitarian entrants are:
          1- Working
          2- Studying full time
          3- Looking after family
          4- Studying and looking after family
          5- Unemployed and looking for work

          So again, the article you have provided demonstrates that refugees are not coming here to live off welfare-those that are on welfare are in the most part studying, or in a caring role-both avenues where it is perfectly normal for people to not be involved in work.

          It’s funny you didn’t notice this, I mean, you got your data from Table 10: Employment category and household receipt of Centrelink payments, right?

          But that table shows that refugees who are unemployed (Rather than retired/studying/caring), make no more than 16% of any particular age group of refugees. Funny you didn’t see that.

          So it seems, far from rejecting your evidence, I’m accepting far more than you are!

        • Whoa… I have never said they were here to live off welfare and not work. I was merely sharing the evidence that most of the refugees end up on long term welfare like you asked. Something which I think is actually an important factor to consider.

          I did read the report and also agree that most refugees do eventually start contributing as tax payers. All I am saying is that it usually takes years if not a generation for this to happen, and its not as simple as let everyone in and they’ll work and start paying their way. The country will have to consider the fact that more 80% will still be on welfare 5 years on.

          Just to clear things up, I actually think its good to support refugees but I think there should be a fixed annual intake depending on how much the country can handle. I can carry on and tell you my political stance, but I don’t think it has anything to do with the question “Any evidence the majority of asylum seekers are on long term welfare?”

        • I’m sorry, TZ, I did jump the gun. But so did you. You accused me of ignoring and rejecting evidence just because I interpreted it in a different way, and presented alternative points of data.

          “”I have never said they were here to live off welfare and not work. I was merely sharing the evidence that most of the refugees end up on long term welfare like you asked. “”

          But the image presented by the line “Most refugees reamin on welfare”, and again with “Are you fine with 88% being on centrelink after 3 years? 84.8% for those who only been here 4 years? ALP had already been in power by then.” presents the image of refugees not wanting to work.
          What annoyed me is, as you say, you saw the data that showed this is not the case, showed that refugee involvement in work increased over tiem, particularly among the young, that those on welfare are receiving it so to care for family members, or so that they can continue studying-but decided to sum up the report by saying “Refugees remain on welfare after 5 years”-and have repeated this even though you acknowledge this is not an accurate representation of the refugee community as a whole.

          “All I am saying is that it usually takes years if not a generation for this to happen, and its not as simple as let everyone in and they’ll work and start paying their way. ”

          The evidence you present does not say a generation, it says years. A generation is 20 years-I think that’s you over extending a piece of data.

          “Just to clear things up, I actually think its good to support refugees but I think there should be a fixed annual intake depending on how much the country can handle. ”

          Done. As in this already happens. If we have an increase in onshore aslyum seeker numbers, we reduce our intake elsewhere. So we do have a steady intake number.

    • “send the welfare leeches packing” so where do you and others like you like Chris Merrett want to be sent packing? But did you get “85% of the illegal scum are on long term welfare” from Today Tonight like many other information?

    • So Bluey are you getting help for your Paranoid personality disorder (PPD)?

      Which is a mental disorder characterized by paranoia and a pervasive, long-standing suspiciousness and generalized mistrust of others. Individuals with this personality disorder may be hypersensitive, easily feel slighted, and habitually relate to the world by vigilant scanning of the environment for clues or suggestions that may validate their fears or biases. Paranoid individuals are eager observers. They think they are in danger and look for signs and threats of that danger, potentially not appreciating other evidence.[1]

  9. Pingback: Of Guerilla Bulbs & Other Things | The Buzz

  10. JM, Government figures, not mine, do your own research, sink the boats, save our homeless, MMU, you are a pathetic joke.

    • I would like to meet this person called “anyone” and see if they agree with your BS, red head?

      By the way how is the treatment for Paranoid personality disorder (PPD) going?

  11. We know there are far more white Strayans who have been on welfare for far longer.

    Refugees can take three to six years to qualify for permanent residency, which allows them to get jobs. Even people coming out on spouse visas can take some time to qualify.

  12. Kevin Rudd got it wrong with

    Asylum seekers

    Immigration

    the budget

    We don’t need his mistakes. 400 000 migrants a year, get off the piss Kevin, you and your big multicultural one more election term can go and put a tail on a donkey.

  13. Whoa… I have never said they were here to live off welfare and not work. I was merely sharing the evidence that most of the refugees end up on long term welfare like you asked. Something which I think is actually an important factor to consider.

    I did read the report and also agree that most refugees do eventually start contributing as tax payers. All I am saying is that it usually takes years if not a generation for this to happen, and its not as simple as let everyone in and they’ll work and start paying their way. The country will have to consider the fact that more 80% will still be on welfare 5 years on.

    Just to clear things up, I actually think its good to support refugees but I think there should be a fixed annual intake depending on how much the country can handle. I can carry on and tell you my political stance, but I don’t think it has anything to do with the question “Any evidence the majority of asylum seekers are on long term welfare?”

    • Thanks to Kevin Rudd kissing Abbott arse and going against UN Rules to save his job as PM thanks Bill Shorten changing side again, refugees well never ever come to Australia anymore.

  14. That is the trouble with racists they are only seeing what they wanted to see which are not facts and only come from watching Today Tonight.

    But watch out here comes the abuse and name calling, because some have trouble controlling their emotions.

    Hey if cannot accept the facts, that you BS then f**k off.

  15. This whole blog is a joke, it a government FACT that 85% of all illegals are on long term welfare, you leftys are a joke as well. Don’t forget, a lot of us know who you are, and will freely re-publish your public comments and photos, your intimidation tactics no longer worry me, in fact, you are nothing but a bunch of muppets for me to get a cheap laugh out of.

    • Are you a idiot too?

      Your own comments is proof you are being racist, but hey if you don’t want to read your own comments for the truth, then you have proven you are gutless too.

      Have a nice life, red head.

  16. Government FACT 85% of all illegals are on long term welfare, this blog really is a joke, tab has lost all it’s impact and is a laughing stock.

    • According to a BS Artist like you?

      LOL LOL

      But remember, to get the bigger picture you don’t just look at the smaller picture idiot.

What do YOU think about this?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s