Iran is feeling empowered,

who can blame them with the big bucks we've handed/are handing over to them by their buddy the Trojan Horse. They need those sanctions put right back in place, and handed a new azz.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...Bw1igJ?ocid=sf

who can blame them with the big bucks we've handed/are handing over to them by their buddy the Trojan Horse. They need those sanctions put right back in place, and handed a new azz.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...Bw1igJ?ocid=sf Originally Posted by Cherie

The next headline in Iran will be......"Iranian Navy drives imperialist warship from waters".

Didn't we just give this bunch a shit load of money?

This is what happens when 0zombies elect a mooslem president... http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2639...iel-greenfield

OUR CATASTROPHIC FAILURE OF JIHAD DENIAL


Stephen Coughlin reveals the terrifying extent of the blindfolding of America in the terror war.

August 23, 2016 Daniel Greenfield 104


Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

An outraged nation watched on September 11 as a handful of Muslim terrorists managed to kill thousands of Americans in one of the worst attacks in our history. Answers were demanded and commissions were established to investigate why we failed to prevent the attack.

Why didn’t we know that it was coming? Why didn’t we do something?

It’s still a good question as the number of attacks mount. But under Obama, we actually know less about Islamic terrorism than we used to.

While thousands of Americans died on that terrible day at the hands of Islamic terrorists, thousands of other Americans stepped forward to do their duty. Some brought sandwiches to Ground Zero. Others enlisted in the military to fight. Still others sought unique ways to use their special talents to make a contribution to combating the enemies of civilization.

Stephen Coughlin was a reserve Army officer called up to active duty. He left the private sector for the Directorate for Intelligence. For the next six years he worked in a variety of key roles to shape and orient the war and spoke about the threat of Islamic terrorism everywhere from Quantico to the Naval War College so that those on the front lines of the conflict would understand who the enemy was.

Then he was forced out because he was too good at pointing out the enemy. And the enemy had gotten inside. It would bore deeper and deeper into our national security infrastructure as the years and the wars dragged on.

But the government’s loss is our gain.

“Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad” is Coughlin’s vigorous blast of fresh air through the stale clichés that clutter up counterterrorism conversations. You know the ones. Offending Islam plays into the hands of the terrorists. Mentioning that Al Qaeda is Islamic plays into the hands of the terrorists. Doing anything except playing the denial game also plays into the hands of the terrorists.

“Catastrophic Failure” conveys the information that Coughlin packaged in briefings to the men and women fighting the war. It is the outcome of his work, his briefings and his research. It is why he was fired.

As one of the leading experts in what the terrorists of Islam actually think and want, Stephen Coughlin not only shatters this brass wall of dishonesty, but shows that the real threat comes from the concealment of whom the terrorists we are fighting are and what they really want.

Coughlin’s conviction in analysis took him on this Diogenesian journey for the truth. He was not the only one traveling this road, discarding the excuses and the lies, striving to see clearly what was happening and why. And yet his position so close to the heart of the great failure machine of national security gives him a unique insight into what has gone wrong and into what must be set right.

That is what “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad” is. It is an analysis of what has gone wrong. Its cover of an eagle wearing a green blindfold all too aptly captures the tragic farce of our fight against terrorism. But it is also a compelling argument about what we must do.

Instead of seeing the threats the bird of prey tasked with our national defense has been hooded in green. He sits tamely on the arm of the Muslim Brotherhood falconer. Our government has responded to Muslim terror by seeking out Muslim moderates to save us from the extremists. But the moderates are not moderate. And working so close to the machine, Coughlin saw how the need to win over moderates, to consult them and rely on them, led to the shift in power as they created the framework in which decisions were made.

Counterterrorism was increasingly being made in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and by the Muslim Brotherhood.

The great struggle of our time is to flip that framework over and restore the power of decision for this war to Americans. Coughlin is a powerful writer and thinker, and he has poured his passion into these arguments that are meant to accomplish just that. He knows Islamic thought and law, and their real life implications, but his background has also prepared him to present focused laser blasts of information to audiences. His key goal and theme has been the importance of knowing the enemy.

“Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad” is a text of knowledge. It is a book about the importance of knowing the enemy so that we may know the war that we are in.

Coughlin draws us a map of the Islamic organizational war against civilization “unconstrained” by the usual preconceptions about moderates and extremists. Instead he shows us who the enemy is by showing us how they think and how they see themselves. He connects the red dots of the Islamic Movement and the road to the Caliphate which is being pursued by far more Muslim groups than just the overt butchers of ISIS whose lack of patience leads them to act before they can sustain their Jihad.

“Catastrophic Failure” is not merely a book about Islamic terrorism. It is about the core worldview of the struggle. It is about how the bombings, shootings and stabbings that we see on the evening news are rooted in an Islamic mindset that stretches from the proverbial “lone wolf” whose actions are blamed on psychiatric problems or a failure to integrate to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the rest of our so-called moderate allies and partners.

It is also about how our process, our ability to analyze and produce forecasts, and then to make decisions based on them, was corrupted by Islamic influence operations. It is about how the “eagle” was seduced with fantasies of moderate Islam by the enemies of this country. And it is about what must be done to lift the eagle’s blindfold and allow him to soar overhead again.

Stephen Coughlin has seen the profound failure of our national security up close. He saw what went wrong and equally importantly, he has seen what could have been if national security were oriented around our security instead of orbiting like a satellite around our impulses toward political correctness.

“Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad” is a valuable book because it reflects the invaluable experiences of its author. It is a story of three wars. The war that was. The war that is. And the war that will be. The motives and the tactics of the enemy have remained consistent in these wars. And that allows Coughlin to predict their patterns. The enemy will not suddenly turn moderate. The question that hangs over the war that will be is whether our leaders will open their eyes to the fight.

It's a good thing Obama has kept us from going into War in Iran and besides we can't afford it; economy is too fragile right now. You thought American death toll was high in Iraq just imagine going into Iran a country 3 times bigger and more potent than Iraq. It's another Vietnam if we don't use mostly Air power like I said before.

You war mongers love nothing but a good war. Sit your fat lazy asses on the couch and watch body after body pile up while you sip tea (no PUN intended) and eat angel cake.

It's a good thing Obama has kept us from going into War in Iran and besides we can't afford it; economy is too fragile right now. You thought American death toll was high in Iraq just imagine going into Iran a country 3 times bigger and more potent than Iraq. It's another Vietnam if we don't use mostly Air power like I said before.

You war mongers love nothing but a good war. Sit your fat lazy asses on the couch and watch body after body pile up while you sip tea (no PUN intended) and eat angel cake. Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

Fuck you and BO. No one ever said lets go to war. That was always a false choice that BO threw out there to try and defend his horrible deal. It's either his way or war? The Iranians knew he was a pussy when he took that option off the table long ago. . He sold us out.

Bullshit. All he's done is give us a worse war to fight in the future.

You're a buffoon.

Quit wasting bandwidth..

It's a good thing Obama has kept us from going into War in Iran and besides we can't afford it; economy is too fragile right now. You thought American death toll was high in Iraq just imagine going into Iran a country 3 times bigger and more potent than Iraq. It's another Vietnam if we don't use mostly Air power like I said before.

You war mongers love nothing but a good war. Sit your fat lazy asses on the couch and watch body after body pile up while you sip tea (no PUN intended) and eat angel cake. Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

I agree. We do not need an armed conflict with Iran. The only way we could defeat them would be to nuke them.

And what crawled out of the ashes would hate us even more.

It all goes back to that Muslim shit. They have millions ready to die in the name of Allah, and his mass murdering, genocidal, pedophilic Prophet.

The last months of WW-2, when the Allies had to face the Kamakazi Pilots, taught a lesson that should be part of every military lesson plan. That being, if someone is willing to die for a cause, a religion, an emperor, or what ever, it takes huge resources to stop him from killing you.

We don't have it.

Fuck you and BO. No one ever said lets go to war. That was always a false choice that BO threw out there. It's either his way or war? He never kept us from going to war. He sold us out.

Bullshit. All he's done is give us a worse war to fight in the future.

You're a buffoon.

Quit wasting bandwidth.. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

If you can't tell us how he sold us out in any way then shut your fucking trap you're nothing but a conspiracy theorist. He won the Presidency and as such he gets the right to set the foreign policy agenda. Don't like it move your ass back to Europe or wherever the hell you're from.

who can blame them with the big bucks we've handed/are handing over to them by their buddy the Trojan Horse. They need those sanctions put right back in place, and handed a new azz. Originally Posted by Cherie

You mean those "snap back" sanctions that Obama touted and the media swooned over because they unquestioningly believe everything the Administration puts out? Don't be an idiot.

The next headline in Iran will be......"Iranian Navy drives imperialist warship from waters".

Didn't we just give this bunch a shit load of money? Originally Posted by Jackie S

Are you talking about the nuclear payoff money or the ransom for hostages money? Or is there another shit load of money Obama gave them that I've missed or the media has white washed?

Fuck you and BO. No one ever said lets go to war. That was always a false choice that BO threw out there to try and defend his horrible deal. It's either his way or war? The Iranians knew he was a pussy when he took that option off the table long ago. . He sold us out.

Bullshit. All he's done is give us a worse war to fight in the future. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

We won't be fighting that worse war in the future. We are fighting it on American soil now. Obama, Hillary and the DNC want it that way.

If you can't tell us how he sold us out in any way then shut your fucking trap you're nothing but a conspiracy theorist. He won the Presidency and as such he gets the right to set the foreign policy agenda. Don't like it move your ass back to Europe or wherever the hell you're from. Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

I'd say BO sold us out with his " nuke deal" with Iran. 150 billion plus the 400 million down payment, in cash.

If you can't tell us how he sold us out in any way then shut your fucking trap you're nothing but a conspiracy theorist. He won the Presidency and as such he gets the right to set the foreign policy agenda. Don't like it move your ass back to Europe or wherever the hell you're from. Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

let's look at that agenda shall we?

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/08/24/...tan-iraq-iran/

Argument
If This Is Obama’s Middle East ‘Balancing Act,’ God Help Us

Robert Malley isn’t wrong in recounting how Obama conducted foreign policy in the Middle East. It’s why they chose that policy that’s screwy.





Argument
If This Is Obama’s Middle East ‘Balancing Act,’ God Help Us

Robert Malley isn’t wrong in recounting how Obama conducted foreign policy in the Middle East. It’s why they chose that policy that’s screwy.

• By James F. Jeffrey
• August 24, 2016

The Middle East remains the most dangerous, most complicated, and perhaps most controversial element in the Obama administration’s conduct of world affairs. In an interview with Foreign Policy contributor Aaron David Miller, Robert Malley, special assistant to the president and coordinator for the Middle East on the National Security Council staff, discussed President Barack Obama’s Middle East policies in depth. It is not only a polished, sober assessment of the actions and interests of the Obama administration, it’s a surprising one, too — it’s rare that a White House insider and counsel to the president gives us such insight into how off-base much of Obama’s approach to the region is. As ambassador to Turkey and Iraq during the Obama administration’s first term, I had a front row seat as much of that approach developed.


To be fair, I have few quibbles with Malley’s rendition of Obama’s actions. His account of the Syrian chemical weapons denouement gives more credit to the administration’s decisiveness and less to pure chance — Putin compromising to thwart U.S. military action that Obama had essentially ruled out — than the public record justifies. Malley is basically right, however, in his assessment of the Iran nuclear deal, and the role of “tough multilateral diplomacy” and threat of force in achieving a breakthrough.







But a list of American actions does not alone make a coherent mosaic. What gives context are the objectives that underlie activity. Malley, in the two he stresses, and the one he basically ignores, reveals why — as Miller noted — many believe “the Middle East is going to look a lot worse when Barack Obama leaves office than when he arrived.”


For Malley, the core administration objectives are 1) avoiding attacks, particularly terrorist, on Americans (“the president’s priority … must be to defend America’s security”) and, 2) avoiding disastrous military adventures (“costly, open-ended conflicts”; “getting bogged down in military adventures”; and avoiding the myth “that military victory invariably translates into lasting political success”).

The problem is that these objectives do not add up to a coherent policy — at best, they are things to be careful about when doing foreign policy.

The problem is that these objectives do not add up to a coherent policy — at best, they are things to be careful about when doing foreign policy. But Malley insists these are the standards by which to measure the administration.

He has half a point with the first. Since Sept. 11, 2001, the American people have been fixated on avoiding any terrorist attack on U.S. soil. In fact, a recent poll found that 42 percent of Americans say they are less safe from terrorism than before 9/11. But that persistent fear can lead us to ignore what was long thought vital: that if America does not deal with the broader threats to peace that so devastated Europe and Asia in the past century, it places its own security at existential risk.


To emphasize the importance of avoiding unsuccessful military operations — his second “core” objective — Malley inflates the dangers. His target, as often with this administration, is the last administration: “nor should one forget that when Obama took office, the United States had roughly 150,000 troops in Iraq, an unsustainable allocation of human and material resources that was harming our global security posture. Iran also was steadily advancing its nuclear program, presenting the threat of a dangerous military confrontation.” We “forget” this, of course, because it didn’t actually happen as Malley describes: Obama became president not in 2003, but 2009. By then, almost all fighting had ceased in Iraq, President George W. Bush had begun withdrawing forces and had committed to pull out all troops before 2012. Likewise, Bush had opted not to confront Iran militarily over nuclear programs, begun the P5+1 negotiations with Tehran, mobilized the international community with four Security Council resolutions, and negotiated with the Iranians in Baghdad to avoid tensions over Iraq.


Even more troubling is Malley’s lack of emphasis on the classic U.S. foreign policy objective since the 1940s: the maintenance of a global security order based on liberal values, international law, and trade and finance — all enabled by collective security centered on America’s readiness to defend these goals; not only against ideological rivals but also regional hegemons seeking to subjugate neighbors and carve out no-go zones against us.


Malley touches on this objective in describing the Obama administration’s balancing act, but does not dwell on what seemingly should be a central objective. That’s understandable, perhaps, as the administration put little emphasis on its role in maintaining global order in the Middle East. Initially Obama’s White House team did not have to prioritize these issues, as the focus was — apart from Iran’s nukes — nonstate actors and the Arab Spring. But recently we’ve witnessed serious challenges to that order: the rise of the Islamic State; the Bashar al-Assad regime’s slaughter of its population and subsequent fallout; the refugee tidal wave across the Middle East and into Europe; Iran’s infiltration of four Arab states; and Russia’s military return.


None of these threats — apart from the Islamic State, and then only recently — has generated a robust American response: Washington was inactive (against the Islamic State, initially, and in countering Russia’s moves), responded inadequately (in supporting the moderate Syrian opposition), or acted contradictorily and weakly (with Iran in regard to missile tests, downplaying the seizure of U.S. sailors, a curious $400 million payment, and so on.)


All of this, Miller notes, is alarming America’s partners. In response, Malley makes the point that Washington’s partners are aware that the United States is supportive of them, but he also is in turn defensive and admonishing: America sells our friends lots of weapons and uses military force. Those opposing America’s Iran policies can’t overcome their “conventional wisdom.” Don’t assume the United States will support allies if their actions work against American interests, say in fomenting a “Sunni-Shia confrontation.”


But perceptions in the region are quite different from Malley’s presentation.

In fact, no-risk, no-casualty American aerial campaigns against terrorists convince no one that Uncle Sam will be there when things get rough.

In fact, no-risk, no-casualty American aerial campaigns against terrorists convince no one that Uncle Sam will be there when things get rough. Ducking military challenges that carry risks is what our partners see. The administration may want to dismiss those unhappy with Washington’s Iran policy as hopeless opponents of a reasonable (and here I agree with Malley) nuclear deal. But aside from Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, nobody in the region opposes that agreement explicitly. Rather, understanding that this agreement will give Iran financial and diplomatic benefits useful for its hegemonic agenda, they expected America to understand these concerns — and many thought they got Washington’s commitment to do just that at two summits with the president. But instead of reassurance, they get warnings about unleashing a Sunni-Shiite confrontation.

One explanation for Obama’s failure to respond effectively to threats to the regional order by Iran, the Islamic State, and now the Russians is the administration’s obsession with Malley’s two objectives, especially avoiding military missteps. Running a deterrence policy always risks military setbacks. But if minimizing risk is job one, deterrence necessarily gets short shrift. Even worse might come. Malley’s emphasis on “testing” the Russians, his assumptions that Putin could bog down in Syria where Assad can’t win, his hope for a better relationship with Iran, and his disparaging tone toward partners together suggest that perhaps the administration does have a Middle East grand strategy, albeit one not vetted publicly: to “share” (the president’s word, not Malley’s) the region with those anti-status quo forces now helping turn it into a nightmare. In this regard, Malley’s most worrisome words refer to the end of Obama’s time in the White House: “six months is a long time … there is still so much to be done.”

If you can't tell us how he sold us out in any way then shut your fucking trap you're nothing but a conspiracy theorist. He won the Presidency and as such he gets the right to set the foreign policy agenda. Don't like it move your ass back to Europe or wherever the hell you're from. Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

Another incoherent rambling post. You should start giving some of that money back to the Hillary campaign.

All that money BO is giving them hasn't done a damn thing but fund more belligerent behavior from the Iranians. We see it everyday. Maybe if you pulled your head out of BO ass and wiped his shit out of your mouth and eyes you might get passed your infatuation with him and see the truth.

So until then perhaps you should shut your trap. You smell like the shit sandwich that BO fed you.

Soros is the problem, Trump is the answer!

Trumps not running against Hillhag but Soros!

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2639...caroline-glick

SOROS’S CAMPAIGN OF GLOBAL CHAOS

Piercing the veil of the megalomaniacal nature of Soros’s philanthropic project.

August 23, 2016 Caroline Glick

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post.

Major media outlets in the US have ignored the leak of thousands of emails from billionaire George Soros’s Open Society Foundation by the activist hacker group DCLeaks. The OSF is the vehicle through which Soros has funneled billions of dollars over the past two decades to non-profit organizations in the US and throughout the world.

According to the documents, Soros has given more than $30 million to groups working for Hillary Clinton’s election in November, making him her largest single donor. So it is likely the case that the media’s support for Clinton has played some role in the mainstream media’s bid to bury the story.

It is also likely however, that at least some news editors failed to understand why the leaked documents were worth covering. Most of the information was already public knowledge. Soros’s massive funding of far-left groups in the US and throughout the world has been documented for more than a decade.

But failing to see the significance of the wider story because many of the details were already known is a case of missing the forest for the trees. The DCLeaks document dump is a major story because it exposes the forest of Soros’s funding networks.

The first thing that we see is the megalomaniacal nature of Soros’s philanthropic project. No corner of the globe is unaffected by his efforts. No policy area is left untouched.

On the surface, the vast number of groups and people he supports seem unrelated. After all, what does climate change have to do with illegal African immigration to Israel? What does Occupy Wall Street have to do with Greek immigration policies? But the fact is that Soros-backed projects share basic common attributes.

They all work to weaken the ability of national and local authorities in Western democracies to uphold the laws and values of their nations and communities.

They all work to hinder free markets, whether those markets are financial, ideological, political or scientific. They do so in the name of democracy, human rights, economic, racial and sexual justice and other lofty terms.

In other words, their goal is to subvert Western democracies and make it impossible for governments to maintain order or for societies to retain their unique identities and values.

Black Lives Matter, which has received $650,000 from Soros-controlled groups over the past year, is a classic example of these efforts. Until recently, the police were universally admired in the US as the domestic equivalent of the military. BLM emerged as a social force bent on politicizing support for police.

Its central contention is that in the US, police are not a force for good, enabling society to function by maintaining law and order. Rather, police are a tool of white repression of blacks.

Law enforcement in predominantly African American communities is under assault as inherently racist.

BLM agitation, which has been accused of inspiring the murders of police in several US cities, has brought about two responses from rank and file police. First, they have been demoralized, as they find themselves criminalized for trying to keep their cities safe from criminals.

Second, their willingness to use force in situations that demand the use of force has diminished. Fear of criminal charges on the one hand, and public condemnation as “racists” on the other causes police to prefer inaction even when situations require that they act.

The demoralization and intimidation of police is very likely to cause a steep increase in violent crimes.

Then there are Soros’s actions on behalf of illegal immigration. From the US to Europe to Israel, Soros has implemented a worldwide push to use immigration to undermine the national identity and demographic composition of Western democracies. The leaked emails show that his groups have interfered in European elections to get politicians elected who support open border policies for immigrants from the Arab world and to financially and otherwise support journalists who report sympathetically on immigrants.

Soros’s groups are on the ground enabling illegal immigrants to enter the US and Europe. They have sought to influence US Supreme Court rulings on illegal immigration from Mexico. They have worked with Muslim and other groups to demonize Americans and Europeans who oppose open borders.

In Israel as well, Soros opposes government efforts to end the flow of illegal immigration from Africa through the border with Egypt.

The notion at the heart of the push for the legalization of unfettered immigration is that states should not be able to protect their national identities.

If it is racist for Greeks to protect their national identity by seeking to block the entrance of millions of Syrians to their territory, then it is racist for Greece – or France, Germany, Hungary, Sweden the US or Poland – to exist.

Parallel to these efforts are others geared toward rejecting the right of Western democracies to uphold long-held social norms. Soros-supported groups, for instance, stand behind the push not only for gay marriage but for unisex public bathrooms.

They support not only the right of women to serve in combat units, but efforts to force soldiers to live in unisex barracks. In other words, they support efforts aimed at denying citizens of Western democracies the right to maintain any distance between themselves and Soros’s rejection of their most intimate values – their sexual privacy and identity.

As far as Israel is concerned, Soros-backed groups work to delegitimize every aspect of Israeli society as racist and illegitimate. The Palestinians are focal point of his attacks. He uses them to claim that Israel is a racist state. Soros funds moderate leftist groups, radical leftist groups, Israeli Arab groups and Palestinian groups. In various, complementary ways, these groups tell their target audiences that Israel has no right to defend itself or enforce its laws toward its non-Jewish citizens.

In the US, Soros backed groups from BLM to J Street work to make it socially and politically acceptable to oppose Israel.

The thrust of Soros’s efforts from Ferguson to Berlin to Jerusalem is to induce mayhem and chaos as local authorities, paralyzed by his supported groups, are unable to secure their societies or even argue coherently that they deserve security.

In many ways, Donald Trump’s campaign is a direct response not to Clinton, but to Soros himself.

By calling for the erection of a border wall, supporting Britain’s exit from the EU, supporting Israel, supporting a temporary ban on Muslim immigration and supporting the police against BLM, Trump acts as a direct foil to Soros’s multi-billion dollar efforts.

The DCLeaks exposed the immensity of the Soros-funded Left’s campaign against the foundations of liberal democracies. The “direct democracy” movements that Soros support are nothing less than calls for mob rule.

The peoples of the West need to recognize the common foundations of all Soros’s actions. They need to realize as well that the only response to these premeditated campaigns of subversion is for the people of the West to stand up for their national rights and their individual right to security. They must stand with the national institutions that guarantee that security, in accordance with the rule of the law, and uphold and defend their national values and traditions.

Only James Bond can stop him.

Yes, Fisting Chap. It is Obama's prerogative to set foreign policy. And he fucked it up royally. No other country respects us like they used to. Bush and Obama have proven that we can be played for saps. Hillary will continue that slide, because they know her foreign policy is a menu of choices based on donations to the Clinton Foundation. Want us to ignore civil rights violations in Islamic countries? Make a donation. Want preferential trade deals? Make a donation. Our foreign policy will be sold to the highest bidder. It will take decades to undo the damage Hillary will wreak on this nation, if there is a functioning nation left.

Yes, Fisting Chap. It is Obama's prerogative to set foreign policy. And he fucked it up royally. No other country respects us like they used to. Bush and Obama have proven that we can be played for saps. Hillary will continue that slide, because they know her foreign policy is a menu of choices based on donations to the Clinton Foundation. Want us to ignore civil rights violations in Islamic countries? Make a donation. Want preferential trade deals? Make a donation. Our foreign policy will be sold to the highest bidder. It will take decades to undo the damage Hillary will wreak on this nation, if there is a functioning nation left. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

send this out to every American, maybe even the "grownup children" will understand what The Clintons have and are looking to do for their pocketbooks. They are the epitome of megalomaniacs.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/16...SIN=1621575454