Biden Bits: To Come Together and Make a Difference…

Biden Tweets Christmas Logo. Image by Lenny Ghoul.

It’s Tuesday.

Days.to. As of 12/07/2021 @ 8:38 a.m. CA., time.

For Tuesday, December 7th, 2021, President Biden has received his daily brief. This morning he will hold a secure video call with the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin.

On Saturday, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki issued the following statement regarding President Biden’s upcoming call with President Putin.

President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. will hold a secure video call with President Vladimir Putin of Russia on Tuesday, December 7, 2021. The leaders will discuss a range of topics in the U.S.-Russia relationship, including strategic stability, cyber, and regional issues. President Biden will underscore U.S. concerns with Russian military activities on the border with Ukraine and reaffirm the United States’ support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.

White House.gov. 12/04/2021.

On Monday, the White House published the Background Press Call by Senior Admin Officials on the upcoming call.

As you all know, President Biden and President Putin will hold a secure video call tomorrow.  In advance of that call, the President will be speaking later today with key European allies to coordinate his message and ensure that he goes into that conversation with President Putin with allied unity and strong transatlantic solidarity on the way forward.  And this follows days and weeks of intense diplomacy with European allies and partners, as well as discussions with the Russians and the Ukrainians at multiple levels.

Secretary Blinken will also be speaking with President Zelenskyy in advance of the secure video call.  And President Biden will talk to President Zelenskyy in the days following the call to be sure that he’s able to read it out and also consult closely with the President of Ukraine.

President Biden will obviously raise our concerns with Russia’s military buildup and plans, with respect to Ukraine.  The agenda will also cover a number of other critical issues including strategic stability, cyber, and Iran’s nuclear program. 

And, you know, we have believed from the beginning of this administration that there is no substitute for direct dialogue for leaders, and that is true in spades when it comes to the U.S.-Russia relationship.  So, President Biden welcomes the opportunity to engage clearly and directly with President Putin.

Indeed, as President Biden said after their meeting in Geneva in June, “Where we have differences, I wanted President Putin to understand why I say what I say and why I do what I do, and how we’ll respond to specific kinds of actions that harm America’s interests.” That statement then remains true today. And that’s going to be the spirit with which President Biden conducts this discussion.

Fundamentally, President Biden has been consistent all along in his basic message to the Russian President and the Russian Federation: The United States does not seek conflict.  We can work together on issues like strategic stability and arms control.  But whenever necessary, the United States has and will continue to impose meaningful consequences for harmful and destabilizing actions.

When it comes to Ukraine, we have made clear our deep concern by evidence that Russia is stepping up its planning for significant military action against Ukraine. Secretary Blinken discussed this in detail. He talked about what the United States has learned of Russia’s plans with our NATO Allies at this week’s — last week’s NATO foreign ministerial.

To be clear, we do not know whether President Putin has made a decision about further military escalation in Ukraine, but we do know that he is putting in place the capacity to engage in such escalation should he decide to do so.

We’ve seen this Russian playbook before, in 2014, when Russia last invaded Ukraine.  Then, as now, they intensified disinformation in an effort to portray Ukraine as the aggressor and use that in an effort to justify what was a preplanned military offensive.

Obviously, President Biden will raise these concerns.  He will make clear that there will be very real costs should Russia choose to proceed, but he will also make clear that there is an effective way forward with respect to diplomacy. 

We have had extensive interactions with our European allies and partners in recent weeks, including with Ukraine, about the need to respond together and resolutely to any further aggression in Ukraine, and fundamentally have also aligned with them around diplomacy being the responsible way to resolve this potential crisis.

We’re encouraging Russia to return to dialogue through diplomatic avenues, including the fulfillment of the Minsk Agreement.

As I said, the call will not be confined to this subject matter because there are other topics that are critical to America’s national security, including the continuing challenge in cyberspace, including the need to make progress on fundamental questions of strategic stability in the nuclear and space domains, and our concerns about the advances that Iran is making with its nuclear program and the threat that those pose to regional peace and security, as well as international peace and security.  So, all of this will be on the agenda in the conversation. 

The President will conduct this discussion the same way he has with past discussions with Putin, in a professional, candid, straightforward manner, where he will make clear — without any kind of rhetorical flourish or finger-wagging — what the United States is prepared to do, both in respect to deterrence and in respect to diplomacy.

And that is his intention, and he’s looking forward to the opportunity to engage.

And I’ll stop there and would be happy to take some questions.

White House.gov. 12/06/2021.

The Q&A:

1. Thanks so much for doing this.  I wanted you to — I was hoping you could respond to Russia’s demands for legal agreement regarding expanding NATO.  Is there anything even near that that is on the table?  And, you know, does the United States see that as an opening negotiating tactic or a pretext to invasion? And, if I could, I wanted to ask: In regards to financial sanctions, how do you impose enough financial sanctions to hurt Russia enough to change its behavior or encourage a change of behavior but not, in the process, hurt Western democracies who are intertwined with Russia oil, gas and need Russia for their own economic benefits?  Thanks.

The United States has consistently expressed support for the principle that every country has the sovereign right to make its own decisions with respect to its security. That is written into the founding documents of the Alliance, and that remains U.S. policy today and will remain U.S. policy in the future. So, that much is straightforward and clear. We will, of course, support discussions between NATO and Russia to address larger issues of concern on both sides — Russia’s concerns with NATO activities, and NATO and American concerns with Russian activities.  We did this in the Cold War and developed a mechanism to help reduce instability and increase transparency.  We’ve done this in the post-Cold War era through the NATO-Russia Council, the OSCE, and other mechanisms.  There’s no reason we can’t do that going forward. But we don’t think talk of red lines is helpful.  And, as the President has said, we’re not going to operate according to that logic of accepting other — anyone’s red lines. With respect to financial sanctions, we have had intensive discussions with our European partners about what we would do collectively in the event of a major Russian military escalation in Ukraine.  And we believe that we have a path forward that would involve substantial economic countermeasures by both the Europeans and the United States that would impose significant and severe economic harm on the Russian economy, should they choose to proceed. I’m not going to get into the specific details of that, but we believe that there is a way forward here that will allow us to send a clear message to Russia that there will be genuine and meaningful and enduring costs to choosing to go forward, should they choose to go forward, with a military escalation in Ukraine.

White House.gov. 12/06/2021.

2.   Thanks very much for doing this.  I apologize for the background noise.  Can you tell us what you have seen in terms of how the troops are positioned around Ukraine and what you have seen in terms of — more detail of what you’ve seen in terms of both disinformation and potential cyber action?  It’s entirely possible, I could imagine, given the past record, that Putin could decide not to send in (inaudible) but just try to destabilize the country on a much larger scale than we’ve seen so far.

So, first, I should start by saying, as I did at the outset, that we do not know or have a clear indication that President Putin has actually made an affirm- — given an affirmative order here.  It is more about planning intentions and then the kinds of movements that we have seen. And, in this regard, there — the planning, from our perspective, is clear.  The troop movements have involved the addition of battalion tactical groups around Ukraine in multiple, different geographies around those borders — to the south, the west, and to the northeast as well. And we have also seen, as Secretary Blinken said last week, a significant spike in social media activity pushing anti-Ukrainian propaganda, which is approaching levels that we last saw in the leadup to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014. In terms of more specific details on what exactly the nature of those deployments are, I’m going to defer to my military intelligence colleagues to talk through, in part because, you know, I don’t want to tread on sensitive information.  But what we can share in an unclassified format is that we have seen the movement of additional capabilities and forces to the vicinity of Ukraine in multiple different areas.  And these movements are consistent with the planning that we see underway for a military escalation in Ukraine. But again, to the end of your question, could this — could the Russian government choose a different course here — one in which they rely more heavily on information operation, cyber, and destabilization activities inside Ukraine?  Yes, they certainly could do that.  That also has historically been part of the Russian playbook and could be part of the playbook going forward. And part of the engagement we will have with the Russian government at multiple levels, including the presidential level, will be to talk through those elements, as well as the direct application of Russian military forces across the sovereign frontier of Ukraine.

White House.gov. 12/06/2021.

3. Hi, thank you.  I’m wondering, just very clearly, will President Biden tell Vladimir Putin that if the Russian military moves into Ukraine, the U.S. military could be used in response?

President Biden is not going to — in the — well, let me say this: I don’t want to use a public press call to talk about the particular sensitive challenges that President Biden will lay out for President Putin. 
But I would say that the United States is not seeking to end up in a circumstance in which the focus of our countermeasures is the direct use of American military force, as opposed to a combination of support for the Ukrainian military, strong economic countermeasures, and the substantial increase in support and capability to our NATO Allies to ensure that they remain safe. But on the specific question you ask, I am not prepared to say in a public format like this, even on background, exactly what the President is going to say to Putin on the question of under what circumstances the U.S. military could get involved.  I think that would be precipitous public saber-rattling, and we’d prefer to keep those communications with the Russians private.

White House.gov. 12/06/2021.

4. Thanks for doing this.  You spoke a little bit about economic countermeasures, but can you talk a little bit about sort of what has been, if anything — have you had discussions with NATO Allies about what defense would look like if this were to go forward?  You know, Vladimir Putin has been pretty clear on not wanting — not wanting some of the military exercises that NATO Allies have been doing with Ukraine. And, you know, would this — would a renewed invasion of Ukraine, in fact, have the opposite effect, where some of the hardware that the Russians are talking about — been talking about that they don’t want in Europe would end up in Europe, there would be an increased defense posture in NATO that would — that might sort of serve opposite ends?

After 2014, in the invasion of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, the United States helped lead what we call the “European Reassurance Initiative” through NATO, which involved the increasing deployment of U.S. forces and capabilities on NATO territory, including in the Eastern Flank allies’ territory. And it would certainly be the case that if Putin moved in, there would be an increasing request from Eastern Flank allies and a positive response from the United States for additional forces and capabilities and exercises to take place there to ensure the safety and security of our Eastern Flank allies in the face of that kind of aggression in Ukraine. 
That — so, the consequence of the 2014 invasion was increased activity and capability, and that would be the consequence for further military action (inaudible).

White House.gov. 12/06/2021.

5. Hi, thanks very much for doing this call.  Two questions; one is a quick factual question.  I believe Presidents Putin and Biden had a call in July, the month after the Geneva Summit, to discuss other cyber issues.  Could you clarify that or confirm that?  Just — it’s a fact-check question. My second question is a follow-up to what you just were saying about a positive response for additional U.S. forces and capabilities for NATO Allies if Putin does go in.  Are you saying that the U.S. will deploy additional forces to NATO Allies in Eastern Europe if there is an invasion or some sort of military incursion? And also, there’s a report out in the Financial Times today that talks about how many European allies were — have come around to the U.S. position because of unusual intelligence that was shared by the United States with them, particularly in Germany.  Can you talk about that?  Has the U.S. shared unusual intelligence or unusually candid intelligence with European allies in the buildup of these forces?  Thank you.

The U.S. has shared intelligence.  We’ve had senior-level intelligence officials of the U.S. government brief partners at NATO and in capitals that characterize the nature of the intelligence only to say that that has been a substantial and sustained effort over the course of the past few weeks. On your factual question: To be completely honest with you, I’m not sure if it was the month of July.  I’ve got to go look.  The months all tend to bleed together.  So we’ll try to get you an answer on that.
And then, on the capabilities question, I guess I’d just go back to what I said because I don’t — I don’t, you know, want people overstating or overhyping it: After 2014, we had the European Reassurance Initiative, which did involve increased rotational deployments, for example, to NATO Allies on the Eastern Flank. Obviously, they would be seeking, you know, a further increase in that if they were dealing with a circumstance in which Russian forces occupied a greater portion of Ukraine. 
So, my saying that we’d respond positively would be I think you could anticipate that in the event of an invasion, the need to reinforce the confidence and reassurance of our NATO Allies and our Eastern Flank allies would be real, and the United States would be prepared to provide that kind of reassurance. That’s just sort of applying the lessons of 2014 to 2021.  I’m not suggesting that today we have a particular, you know, tick-tock on that — only to say that we are working through the prudent planning of what we would have to do in the event of such an escalation and how we would have to ensure the security of our NATO Allies in that context.  I would not go — I’m not saying anything further than that. I have just had handed to me — yes, it was July 9th that they spoke by phone.

White House.gov. 12/06/2021.

Yesterday, the White House published a readout of President Biden’s call with European Allies:

Today, President Emmanuel Macron of France, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, Prime Minister Mario Draghi of Italy, Prime Minister Boris Johnson of the United Kingdom, and President Biden of the United States held a call. The leaders discussed their shared concern about the Russian military build-up on Ukraine’s borders and Russia’s increasingly harsh rhetoric. They called on Russia to de-escalate tensions and agreed that diplomacy, especially through the Normandy Format, is the only way forward to resolve the conflict in Donbas through the implementation of the Minsk Agreements. The leaders underscored their support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. They agreed that their teams will stay in close touch, including in consultation with NATO allies and EU partners, on a coordinated and comprehensive approach.

White House.gov. 12/06/2021.

Snips from the above article:

In what was expected to be one of the most pivotal foreign policy meetings of Biden’s still-young presidency, the President is expected to lay out to Putin what sanctions and other actions the US could take if the Russian President decides to invade Ukraine. The US intelligence community believes Putin has still not made up his mind to launch a military offensive against Ukraine, and Biden plans to tell Putin the US is prepared to take “substantive economic countermeasures” meant to inflict “significant and severe economic harm on the Russian economy” should Putin go ahead with a military escalation in Ukraine, a senior administration official told reporters Monday.

[snip]

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Monday that talks between Biden and Putin will take place via a secure video link “behind closed doors. There will be no live broadcast. I think we will show the very beginning of the meeting. The very beginning will be broadcast, the entire meeting will be held behind closed doors,” he said, according to Russian state news agency Tass. “We believe that it will be sufficiently extensive and lengthy video conference held via a secured communication channel. We expect it to be a long one,” Peskov added.

[snip]

A day ahead of the US-Russia call, the Pentagon confirmed that it has continued to observe “added military capability” by Russian forces along the country’s border with Ukraine. “What we continue to see, and what we continue to see is added capability that President Putin continues to add, added military capability in the western part of his country and around Ukraine,” Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said. US officials in recent days have weighed whether to issue wide-reaching sanctions on Russia meant to deter Putin from launching an invasion into Ukraine.
They include new actions against members of Putin’s inner circle and on Russian energy producers, and one potential “nuclear option” — disconnecting Russia from the SWIFT international payment system used by banks around the world. The officials said final decisions hadn’t been made on whether and when to apply the new sanctions, and said the Biden administration is currently in talks with European partners — many of whom have closer economic relationships to Russia — in the hopes of coordinating action.

CNN. 12/07/2021.

President Biden has tweeted 1 time so far for Tuesday…

On December 3rd, the White House issued the following Proclamation on; National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day, 2021:

On December 7, 1941, the Imperial Japanese Navy attacked our forces at Pearl Harbor and other locations in Hawaii, taking the lives of 2,403 service members and civilians and leading the United States to declare its entrance into World War II.  It was a day that still lives in infamy 80 years later.  As we mark National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day, we honor the patriots who perished, commemorate the valor of all those who defended our Nation, and recommit ourselves to carrying forth the ensuing peace and reconciliation that brought a better future for our world.  Today, we give thanks to the Greatest Generation, who guided our Nation through some of our darkest moments and laid the foundations of an international system that has transformed former adversaries into allies.

A decade ago, I paid my respects at the USS Arizona Memorial — where 1,177 crewmen lost their lives on that terrible December day.  To this day, beads of oil still rise to the surface of the water — metaphorical “Black Tears” shed for those lost in the attack.  Reading those names etched in marble was a mournful reminder of the sacrifices and the human cost of protecting our Nation and the ideals this great country represents.  Our Nation remains forever indebted to all those who gave their last full measure of devotion eight decades ago.  We will never forget those who perished, and we will always honor our sacred obligation to care for our service members, veterans, and their families, caregivers, and survivors. 

The Congress, by Public Law 103-308, as amended, has designated December 7 of each year as “National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day.”

NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim December 7, 2021, as National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day.  I encourage all Americans to reflect on the courage shown by our brave warriors that day and remember their sacrifices.  I ask us all to give sincere thanks and appreciation to the survivors of that unthinkable day.  I urge all Federal agencies, interested organizations, groups, and individuals to fly the flag of the United States at half-staff on December 7, 2021, in honor of those American patriots who died as a result of their service at Pearl Harbor.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this third day of December, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-one, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-sixth.

White House.gov. 12/03/2021.

For more thoughts on Pearl Harbor; Richard wrote a nice piece for the Owl

When Biden Bits was posted for Monday, President Biden tweeted 2 times. He added 9 tweets and 0 retweets.

Yesterday, President Biden offered remarks on the costs of prescription drugs. The below YouTube is 16 minutes and 25 seconds long. His full remarks can be found here.

President Biden: There aren’t a lot of things that almost every American agree — can agree on.  But I think it’s safe to say that all of us –- all of us — whatever our background, our age, where we live — we can agree that prescription drugs are outrageously expensive in this country. It doesn’t need to be that way.  Under my Build Back Better bill, there will be — which has passed the House of Representatives — it won’t be the same way.

President Biden: Depending on the nature of someone’s Type 1 diabetes, the average sticker price for a month’s supply of insulin is about $375.  But some people — it can be as high as $1000 a month because they need to take more.

President Biden: First, we’re going to cap cost-sharing for insulin at $35 per month.  That means you can’t get charged more than 35 bucks at a pharmacy counter for your insulin.  That’s across the board, whether you get health insurance through your private policy, the Affordable Care Act Marketplace, or through Medicare.  Nobody is going to pay more than $35 each month for insulin.

President Biden: Second, for people who don’t have health insurance, we’re helping you get insurance.  That way, people with diabetes can get protected with that $35 co-pay cap.  People who are uninsured today can visit Healthcare.gov to check out the options. In many cases, people can get a full healthcare plan, including coverage for insulin and other prescription drugs, doctor’s visits, and hospitalizations for less than $10 a month if you sign up for the plan. If you live in a state that has refused to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, my Build Back Better bill is going to fix that as well. These changes are going to ensure access to affordable coverage for millions more Americans and help more people with diabetes get the coverage they desperately need.

President Biden: Third, we’re going to end the days when drug companies could increase their prices with no oversight and no accountability. Going forward, drug companies that increase their prices faster than inflation are going to face a steep excise tax.  In other words, if you’re saying to — we’re saying to drug companies: If you’re finally doing it because — because — to be accountable, when your prices to the American people go up, you’re going to be accountable.

President Biden: This is not a partisan issue.  Diabetes, Alzheimer’s, cancer, so many other diseases — they don’t care if you’re a Democrat or a Republican.  This is not whether — it’s not about whether or not your loved ones can afford a prescription drug you need. So we need Congress to finish the job, to come together and make a difference in people’s lives.

The Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy was issued on July 9th, 2021.

Prescription Drugs appears 3 times in that EO…

 Americans are paying too much for prescription drugs and healthcare services — far more than the prices paid in other countries.  Hospital consolidation has left many areas, particularly rural communities, with inadequate or more expensive healthcare options.  And too often, patent and other laws have been misused to inhibit or delay — for years and even decades — competition from generic drugs and biosimilars, denying Americans access to lower-cost drugs.

(iv)    not later than 45 days after the date of this order, submit a report to the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Director of the Domestic Policy Council and to the Chair of the White House Competition Council, with a plan to continue the effort to combat excessive pricing of prescription drugs and enhance domestic pharmaceutical supply chains, to reduce the prices paid by the Federal Government for such drugs, and to address the recurrent problem of price gouging;
          (v)     to lower the prices of and improve access to prescription drugs and biologics, continue to promote generic drug and biosimilar competition, as contemplated by the Drug Competition Action Plan of 2017 and Biosimilar Action Plan of 2018 of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including by:

  (A)  continuing to clarify and improve the approval framework for generic drugs and biosimilars to make generic drug and biosimilar approval more transparent, efficient, and predictable, including improving and clarifying the standards for interchangeability of biological products;
               (B)  as authorized by the Advancing Education on Biosimilars Act of 2021 (Public Law 117-8, 135 Stat. 254, 42 U.S.C. 263-1), supporting biosimilar product adoption by providing effective educational materials and communications to improve understanding of biosimilar and interchangeable products among healthcare providers, patients, and caregivers;
               (C)  to facilitate the development and approval of biosimilar and interchangeable products, continuing to update the FDA’s biologics regulations to clarify existing requirements and procedures related to the review and submission of Biologics License Applications by advancing the “Biologics Regulation Modernization” rulemaking (RIN 0910-AI14); and
               (D)  with the Chair of the FTC, identifying and addressing any efforts to impede generic drug and biosimilar competition, including but not limited to false, misleading, or otherwise deceptive statements about generic drug and biosimilar products and their safety or effectiveness;
          (vi)    to help ensure that the patent system, while incentivizing innovation, does not also unjustifiably delay generic drug and biosimilar competition beyond that reasonably contemplated by applicable law, not later than 45 days after the date of this order, through the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, write a letter to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office enumerating and describing any relevant concerns of the FDA; 
          (vii)   to support the market entry of lower-cost generic drugs and biosimilars, continue the implementation of the law widely known as the CREATES Act of 2019 (Public Law 116-94, 133 Stat. 3130), by:
               (A)  promptly issuing Covered Product Authorizations (CPAs) to assist product developers with obtaining brand-drug samples; and
               (B)  issuing guidance to provide additional information for industry about CPAs; and
          (viii)  through the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, prepare for Medicare and Medicaid coverage of interchangeable biological products, and for payment models to support increased utilization of generic drugs and biosimilars.
     (q)  To reduce the cost of covered products to the American consumer without imposing additional risk to public health and safety, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs shall work with States and Indian Tribes that propose to develop section 804 Importation Programs in accordance with the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173, 117 Stat. 2066), and the FDA’s implementing regulations.

White House.gov. 07/09/2021.

From the Build Back Better Framework:

Finally let Medicare negotiate drug prices. 

Medicare will negotiate prices for high-cost prescription drugs.  This will include drugs seniors get at the pharmacy counter (through Medicare Part D), and drugs that are administered in a doctor’s office (through Medicare Part B). Drugs become eligible for negotiation once they have been on the market for a fixed number of years: 9 years for small molecule drugs and 12 years for biologics. Medicare will negotiate up to 10 drugs per year during 2023, with those prices taking effect in 2025, increasing to up to 20 drugs per year.

The policy will establish a clearly defined negotiation process that is fair for manufacturers, and gets the biggest savings on drugs that have been on the market a long time.  This discourages drug companies from abusing laws to prolong their monopolies, while encouraging investments in research and development of new cures.  Drug companies that refuse to negotiate will owe an excise tax.

Impose a tax penalty if drug companies increase their prices faster than inflation.  Starting when this bill becomes law, future drug price increases will be compared to their current prices.  We will finally put an end to the days where drug companies could raise their prices with impunity.  If prices for a drug increase faster than inflation, manufacturers will owe a tax penalty, holding down prices for Americans with all types of health insurance.

Directly lower out-of-pocket costs for seniors. Today, there is no cap on how much seniors and people with disabilities have to pay for drugs, and millions of seniors pay more than $6,000 a year in cost-sharing.  This proposal puts an end to this burden, and ensures that seniors never pay more than $2,000 a year for their drugs under Medicare Part D.
The plan will also lower insulin prices so that Americans with diabetes don’t pay more than $35 per month for their insulin. Lawmakers have also agreed to lower seniors’ cost-sharing for all types of drugs and they are working expeditiously to finalize legislative text that will save seniors money at the pharmacy counter without increasing premiums.

White House.gov.

The daily press briefing is scheduled for 2:00 p.m. D.C., time.

This is an Open Thread.

About the opinions in this article…

Any opinions expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this website or of the other authors/contributors who write for it.

About Tiff 2520 Articles
Member of the Free Press who is politically homeless and a political junkie.