Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by term2 9 months, 2 weeks ago
    First they try to keep Trump from being elected. Then they try to keep him from doing anything. Then they try to gather evidence to impeach him. When will this nonsense stop. Mueller has spend $7million of OUR money on his witchhunt. Personally, I could care less if the Russians TRIED to affect the election like Obama did in several countries during HIS presidency. If the Russians or anyone else want to advertise their preference for a candidate, let them. If they try to hack the election, we should be spending that $7 million on ways to secure our voting.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ycandrea 9 months, 2 weeks ago
      I would add, "I could care less if the Russians TRIED to affect the election" by putting out facts about Hillary.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  9 months, 2 weeks ago
        i would like to hear Sessions put out some facts about the Evil Hag.
        Thank goodness that she was not the first woman President as I love and respect the fairer sex.
        The women of this country deserve a woman president who is a leader with reason and character.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 9 months, 2 weeks ago
          I think womanhood in this culture have been infected with liberalism and entitlement. A leader with reason and character is going to be VERY hard to find here
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by TheRealBill 9 months, 1 week ago
            A good place to look is in whichever direction Progressive women are flinging the most poo. I don’t know if anyone thinks of them as leaders, but the works of Christina Hoff Summers and Camille Paglia I have found to be pretty sane and interesting. That Progressives get apoplectic over them is icing on the cake.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 9 months, 2 weeks ago
    The liberal judges who blocked the bans should be impeached and removed from office. Here's one piece on how the Judge in question tried to bring in the First Amendment to block the ban. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/... (note that its findings are biased but at least they are thorough)

    The mental gymnastics involved in this are staggering given that the Constitution only applies to legal US Citizens. Further, the Office of the President was given this specific power (to block immigration from nations deemed a danger) back in the 1950's.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  CaptainKirk 9 months, 2 weeks ago
      Every time the sup court overturns a court. Thsie judges should get a 10% reductuion in all future pay, for each occurrence.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by msmithp2 9 months, 2 weeks ago
        Instead of a 10% reduction in pay, how about any judge who decisions are overturned on appeal more than 50% of the time is automatically removed from office.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  CaptainKirk 9 months, 2 weeks ago
          if you keep reducing their pay, they won't be able to afford to make more bad decisions. Remember this is a permanent 10% reduction (retirement, et al). So after 8 times... They are DONE. Or at least we are not paying for their stupidity. And if they stay, you MUST check where their money is coming from!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  9 months, 2 weeks ago
            In the federalist papers, the founding fathers who wrote the constitution tell us .....The judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power in fact the constitution made the judiciary so weak the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter.
            How is that possible? Our founders explained, Barton said, that the judiciary “has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will.”

            In fact, they tell us that, “there is not a syllable in the plan [the Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution.”

            “No wonder Progressives don’t like the Constitution — it restrains them!” Barton reflected. “They don’t like to be held back from fundamentally transforming the country. It’s no wonder that they work so hard to keep the Constitution from being taught in schools.”

            Barton said that Thomas Jefferson long ago warned the people of leaving the Constitution to be interpreted by those who may or may not agree with what it says.

            This is “a very dangerous doctrine indeed,” Jefferson is quoted as saying. “The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.”

            “The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please,” he added.

            David Barton said that we have forgotten the words of the Founding Fathers, and need to go back and study the Constitution.

            As John Jay, author of a number of the Federalist Papers and the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court advised: “Every member of the State ought diligently to read and to study the Constitution of his country…By knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive when they are violated and be the better prepared to defend and assert them.”
            From historian David Barton.

            BTW Hillsdale College offers a free online course : US Constitution 101
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by msmithp2 9 months, 2 weeks ago
            There are two problems I see with this. First, it does not account for the rate of being overturned. You are penalizing a judge that has had 100 cases appealed and 5 overturned (5%) the same as a judge that has had 6 cases appealed and 5 overturned (83%).

            Second, any good judge will occasionally be overturned. THere are many reasons. Maybe the appellate judge is not as "good/correct." Maybe the judge is trying to rollback liberal precedent, but the appeals court is to ready to overturn precedent.

            Think of this situation when you have a progressive president in office for 8 years. A few appointments to stack the appellate court and then the more objective judges would start to be forced from office, letting the progressive president fill their spots. Not what you would want to happen, I think.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  CaptainKirk 9 months, 2 weeks ago
              Good point. Salary reduced by their rejection percentage!
              I did suggest Florida consider the Death Penalty for Activist Judges... But I'm thinking we're not that lucky to get that passed... But wouldn't that be nice!
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  9 months, 2 weeks ago
              Yes the law of unintended consequences . That is one law that needs no judge. That law even pertains to judges interpreting the law due to bias and politics selected by the party that is in vogue.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  9 months, 2 weeks ago
          That is a generous overturn rate.
          Is there any sitting Judge who is overturned half the time by higher courts?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by msmithp2 9 months, 2 weeks ago
            The 9th Circuit court has a 90% overturn rate. You have to give judges some latitude. It is expected that there will be differences of interpretation of law. I would not like to remove a judge from office who gets it "right" more often than they get it "wrong." But I would like to remove a judge from office that demonstrates they more often get it "wrong" than "right."
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by brkssb 9 months, 2 weeks ago
      Would you kindly point out the reference in the US Constitution that it applies only to US citizens? The US Constitution (body) applies to government functions; the first ten amendments (Bill of Rights) enumerate restrictions upon the government owing to the people. BTW, no branch of the government should ever be cast in the terns of “allowing” anything. Nor is anyone or office ever “given" a specific power; either that power is enumerated in the US Constitution or consistent with the enumerated powers therein. But please tell me who is it that does this “allowing” and who it is that is enabled to “give” a specific power?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 9 months, 2 weeks ago
        "Would you kindly point out the reference in the US Constitution that it applies only to US citizens?"

        It is right there in the first seven words of the Preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (emphasis mine) The Constitution outlines which powers We the People are ceding to be exercised by a Federal Government established by us and set up to operate on our behalf. It can not apply to foreigners for several reasons:

        1. Foreigners are prohibited from participating by representation in our government either through voting or as elected officials.
        2. Citizens of one nation have no authority to decide policy on behalf of another nation. The First Amendment notes that one of the protected rights is Association, which first and foremost identifies which Nation/State an individual Associates with.
        3. One of the purposes of citizenship is to establish which nation's laws are of primary application to that individual. Allegiance states that one is under the protection of such a nation and that in return patronage of that nation and participation as a citizen are the duties and rewards. One can not owe allegiance to more than one nation at any given time, and as allegiance is a contract of sorts, BOTH parties must voluntarily agree to the recognition of allegiance or any change to such.

        Note: Interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to apply exclusively to freed slaves (according to its author), who at that time had no national association: they were not Citizens of any nation - including the United States. The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were intended to grant these freed slaves (disenfranchised citizens of the world) full Citizenship within the United States and recognition of the rights they had hitherto been denied. Any interpretation since then extending protection to non-US Citizens has been done by activist Courts and is void of any real or legal standing.

        "BTW, no branch of the government should ever be cast in the terns of “allowing” anything."

        I agree, which is why I never said anything of the sort.

        One thing the Federal Government is specifically empowered with in the Constitution, however, is allowing the entrance - either temporary or permanent - of non-citizens into this nation. Immigration policy is specifically delegated to Congress; treaties to the Senate in particular for ratification. Guest accommodations (visas, temporary work permits, etc.) are usually also set by Congress but in this specific case, Congress gave the President authorization in the 1950's to deny entry into the United States citizens of specific nations deemed to be a threat to the United States at the sole discretion of the President and for whatever reason he deemed fit. Congress could (if it chose) revoke this power grant.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by brkssb 9 months, 2 weeks ago
          (1) Citizenship was a matter of states rights as impacted by the 14th amendment. But “We the People” were the framers rather than the populace of the to-be-endorsing member states and there is no explicit condition(s) of citizenship defined by that term. Birthplace and birthright or oath of allegiance should serve adequately. Prior to the 14th Amendment, wasn’t citizenship defined by the States and not under federal interpretation?
          (2) Do you not agree that when non-citizens are within our borders they accept our laws and become subject to treatment of those laws within the US Constitution? (Except of course, those with diplomatic immunity…)
          (3) I did not intend to imply that you used the term “allow” — I do find the term loosely applied in textbooks and articles. And I will look further at the context of “allowing” entrance of foreigners.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  blarman 9 months, 2 weeks ago
            1) The reason the 14th Amendment was necessary was to hasten the adoption and integration of the disenfranchised slave population. (It should also be noted that there are some irregularities about the ratification of the 13th and 14th Amendments which call into question its legitimacy.)

            "We the People" were both the framers AND the populace affected. It should be remembered that the Constitution was a revision/overhaul of the Articles of Confederation, which did treat the several States as independent and fully sovereign nations (where being a sovereign nation they would have absolute and primary authority over immigration, tourism, etc.). Since the ratification of the Constitution in 1889, immigration and citizenship terms have been under the purview of Congress as per Article 1 Section 8. As each State ratified the Constitution, that State's citizens then became citizens of the United States of America, so there very much existed a formal process and conditions - it was just carried out en masse. As other States were in turn accepted into the Union, their citizens similarly became citizens of the United States.

            (I would note that the EU has nearly duplicated this process. If you have an EU passport, every member nation of the EU must accept the validity of that passport no matter which nation originally issued it.)

            2) Are they subject to our laws? Yes, but that is a price of entry. Are they afforded all the privileges of citizenship or protection by the Constitution? No. They are guests. They don't pay income taxes, nor are they allowed to vote nor hold office. They can also appeal for extradition to their own nation rather than face a US tribunal of justice. So the rules aren't the same. A couple of examples:

            - illegal immigrants who are caught violating the law are more often extradited out of the country than prosecuted and held at our expense. It is notable that ICE (Immigrations and Customs Enforcement - a Federal agency) is charged with this rather than local law enforcement and why the Kate Steinle case is so troubling. The perpetrator had already been removed from the country numerous times and the local law enforcement refused to cooperate with ICE to have him deported yet a seventh(?) time.
            - wiretapping laws make a big distinction between citizens and non-citizens in requiring a warrant (regardless of geographical location). What is interesting is that the warrant applies to the citizen - not the non-citizen. Why? Because the protections of the Fourth Amendment apply to citizens only.

            Now that doesn't mean that guests in our nation have no Rights. The Declaration of Independence specifically cites that rights are inherent - not granted by Government. The difference is in who is responsible for safe-guarding those rights: non-citizens can not apply to have their rights protected by the US Government because they are not subjects of US government but rather subjects to their own governments. That is one of the roles of Embassies - to verify that citizens of that nation are accorded treatment in convention with any treaties agreed to between the two nations.

            3) No worries. The thing to keep in mind is that just like on your property, no one has the right to come onto your property without permission. It's called trespassing. The same principle applies to nation-states, it just means a little more complexity in creating and administering the rules.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  allosaur 9 months, 2 weeks ago
    Those you won't miss, Dobrien, may save American lives.
    That being something a lot of lib judges are not concerned about.
    The precious feelings of those banned is far more important to them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  9 months, 2 weeks ago
      Certainly the hundreds of thousands chanting Death to America while burning our flag feel profiled.Bwaaah
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  allosaur 9 months, 2 weeks ago
        Oh, you must mean the lib idea of model immigrating citizens.
        Just ask libs~
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0Mnr...
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOHJ0...
        Think me dino already did this here. Don't matter! Somebody may have missed it.
        Just like Obobo told Joe the Plumber that he wants to spread the wealth around, me dino wants to spread the truth.
        I am dino~
        Hear me ROAR!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  9 months, 2 weeks ago
          Ungrateful ignorant UC Berkley students . No future with those lice infested morons , good grief.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  allosaur 9 months, 2 weeks ago
            Twelve seconds into the second video, "freeze frame" the video to read a Fall 2014 sign that states, "Weekly Educational Meetings To Study MARXISM And The Pressing Political Issues Of The Day."
            Obviously raised by libtard sheeple parents who sent them to Berkley to be more intensely "educated" by radical professors, these kids do not have a snowball's chance in hell of escaping their "useful idiot" indoctrination.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  9 months, 2 weeks ago
              Funny thing is I did freeze that sign when I watched the first time.
              I pity the life of cognitive dissonance those idiots
              Will exist in. It is like they are begging to be taken to the bleak world of Anthem and ignore reason and logic. I Hear you roaring big Dino.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  allosaur 9 months, 2 weeks ago
                They are as children all dancing behind the Marxist Pied Piper dream of an open bordered Grand Global Socialist Utopia. It will be so wonderful that even Muslims everywhere will toss away their Korans, some their AK47s and altogether forget their own silly dream of a worldwide caliphate to join the parade to peace and parceled out prosperity.
                Yay! What could go wrong? Just ask any typical skinny tapeworm hosting North Korean, who would snap to attention, smile and say, "All hail Big Brother Kim Jong-un!"
                Yay! Isn't that just People's Paradise bodacious?!
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 9 months, 2 weeks ago
    The problem with exporting terrorism is that you will eventually import it. If America hadn't been meddling in the affairs of other countries (installing dictators such as the Shah of Iran) it might not be an imported product now. Although that argument can be made it is impossible to know for certain because it can no longer be tested. There will always be people who desire to gain by conquering and stealing so not exporting terrorism is not a guarantee.
    Keeping out criminals may be important, other than that anyone that wants to come here should be able to come. The same should be true for any other country. When a country tries to keep others out it makes me wonder if they are also trying to keep the populace in. It is very difficult to leave America and earn a living somewhere else for the IRS still wants its cut while the new country also wants its cut. While America has tried to be prudent about who was let in it turns out that the looters (political and voters) turned up anyway and they use violence to collect their claimed debt owed to them because others exist. It failed to protect liberty demonstrated by the fact that it is impossible for any free man to prevent theft by the majority who authorize the use of violence to collect.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  9 months, 1 week ago
      Jimmy Carter abandoned the Shaw bringing about the Islamic revolutions over throw. Carter didn't like the Shaw's imprisoning his enemies. Very similar to Obama destroying stability in Libya when Gaddafi had 250 or so ISIS characters surrounded . Then low and behold our embassy was the first target of the future Hezbollah in Iran and latter in Bhengazi.

      Mohammad Reza came to power during World War II after an Anglo-Soviet invasion forced the abdication of his father, Reza Shah Pahlavi. During Mohammad Reza's reign, the Iranian oil industry was briefly nationalized, under Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, until a US and UK-backed coup d'état deposed Mosaddegh and brought back foreign oil firms.[6] Under Mohammad Reza's reign, Iran marked the anniversary of 2,500 years of continuous Persian monarchy since the founding of the Achaemenid Empire by Cyrus the Great - concurrent with this celebration, Mohammad Reza changed the benchmark of the Iranian calendar from the hegira to the beginning of the First Persian Empire, measured from Cyrus the Great's coronation.[7] Mohammad Reza also introduced the White Revolution, a series of economic, social and political reforms with the proclaimed intention of transforming Iran into a global power and modernising the nation by nationalising certain industries and granting women suffrage.

      A secular Muslim, Mohammad Reza gradually lost support from the Shi'a clergy of Iran as well as the working class, particularly due to his strong policy of modernisation, secularisation, conflict with the traditional class of merchants known as bazaari, relations with Israel, and corruption issues surrounding himself, his family, and the ruling elite. Various additional controversial policies were enacted, including the banning of the communist Tudeh Party, and a general suppression of political dissent by Iran's intelligence agency, SAVAK. According to official statistics, Iran had as many as 2,200 political prisoners in 1978, a number which multiplied rapidly as a result of the revolution.[8]

      Several other factors contributed to strong opposition to the Shah among certain groups within Iran, the most significant of which were US and UK support for his regime, clashes with Islamists and increased communist activity. By 1979, political unrest had transformed into a revolution which, on 17 January, forced him to leave Iran. Soon thereafter, the Iranian monarchy was formally abolished, and Iran was declared an Islamic republic led by Ruhollah Khomeini. Facing likely execution should he return to Iran, he died in exile in Egypt, whose president, Anwar Sadat, had granted him asylum. Due to his status as the last Shah of Iran, he is often known as simply "the Shah".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by chad 9 months, 1 week ago
        It is interesting to follow history and how each individual or group came into power by assuming that each action along the way would produce only one consequence and hence the probable result. SAVAK learned many of its techniques from the CIA and consequently any harm done by SAVAK a causal link between any terrorism or immorality on the part of SAVAK was then attributed to the USA. Just because a community or country is stable enough (or just connected enough) to do business with the USA does not indicate that any moral country, company or individual should do business with them.
        Stating that Gaddafi kept the country stable might be true but what kind of stability do you want? He ruled the people mercilessly, targeted the Lockerbie Pan Am jet with a terrorist planted bomb killing civilians and that the people didn't dare confront him or that American businesses could safely conduct business transactions makes overlooking the murder of civilians on a plane ok or at least balance out because Gaddafi was 'stable'. It could be said that Lenin and Stalin were 'stable' because at least you understood that you were never safe. It was a stable government under Mao Tse Tung where 200 million people died for infractions of rule of state but not for immoral criminal behavior. It was 'stable' in that you knew what to expect from the state if you crossed it.
        If the peace of Rome comes from all resistors being dead then you could say it was a peaceful place to live.
        Although it could be argued that things would have turned out differently if some circumstances could have been changed or done in a different order there is still no way to determine if that would be true.
        The only thing left is to determine if our (the USA's) interactions are moral not if they benefit the country because the business climate is more stable to our benefit. It is not the moral place of any country or individual to make certain that the world benefits them by being what they want to deal with even if that means ignoring violence used to coerce others, even if that violence affects your group but at least not you, as in; "I don't know anyone who died on the Lockerbie Pan Am Jet but at least my company in Libya is under not threat and the checks I receive are still cashable."
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  9 months, 1 week ago
          I am no apologist of Gaddafi but They were the only country to admit and pay retribution for thier terrorist attack over Lockerbie. He also paid with the loss of family
          From Reagans US attack on his "tent". He was much subdued after that and even assisted identifying terrorists..
          Gaddafi was focused on his huge irrigation project intending to export it through out AFrica. His people had access to education and was no longer the bad actor on the world stage. The Libyans were able to feed themselves and were not a debtor nation.
          In Manchester England young girls were killed while exiting a pop concert. This from Straightline logic.
          The suicide attacker was the direct product of US and UK interventions in the greater Middle East.

          According to the London Telegraph, Abedi, a son of Libyan immigrants living in a radicalized Muslim neighborhood in Manchester had returned to Libya several times after the overthrow of Muamar Gaddafi, most recently just weeks ago. After the US/UK and allied “liberation” of Libya, all manner of previously outlawed and fiercely suppressed radical jihadist groups suddenly found they had free rein to operate in Libya. This is the Libya that Abedi returned to and where he likely prepared for his suicide attack on pop concert attendees. Before the US-led attack on Libya in 2011, there was no al-Qaeda, ISIS, or any other related terrorist organization operating (at least with impunity) on Libyan soil.

          Gaddafi himself warned Europe in January 2011 that if they overthrew his government the result would be radical Islamist attacks on Europe, but European governments paid no heed to the warnings. Post-Gaddafi Libya became an incubator of Islamist terrorists and terrorism, including prime recruiting ground for extremists to fight jihad in Syria against the also-secular Bashar Assad..
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Clarity 9 months, 1 week ago
      I just can't grasp the concept of open borders. I question how all the countries asking refuge for their people could tell us how they destroyed their countries because we are rather touchy about our being destroyed the same way.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by chad 9 months, 1 week ago
        I am not certain I grasp what you are trying to say. If any country is going to place limits on who can enter how do you determine the limit. When you get to 100 is there no room for more? What determines if a person is worthwhile to enter? (Some requirements might be obvious; i.e., murder anyone?)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Clarity 9 months, 1 week ago
    I absolutely approve of the bans and limiting the number of refugees drastically until we can get a grip on the situation.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  9 months, 1 week ago
      Yes of course :refugee a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster. These would likely be from Somalia and Syria. I don't want any from there.
      An immigrant should assimilate into OUR culture
      And have the ability to support themselves.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jeffdhurley1 9 months, 1 week ago
    Travel ban I am all in , For us to be told that we must sacrifice our own personal safety and potentially our lives , because someone in another country , who has not worked to build this society and may indeed have designs to cause it's destruction . "deserves" to be allowed in because they" never had a chance" and we , who have been so privileged should allow it because we can afford it and after all we are so rich as a country that we can afford a few losses . Well , I take my oath very seriously ... “I swear – by my life and my love of it – that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 months, 2 weeks ago
    Aw, c'mon Dan, don't be a bad sport. What the heck is a few jihadists here and there. All they want to do is religiously kill you and your family, with glee, so that we can then tell Palestinians, "See? What happens in Israel stays in Israel, so let's continue with the "peace process." Even though every time its tried its broken by the Arabs. We have to ask ourselves, how many times are we to be taken for fools before we wise up and realize that whether it is Palestinians, or whatever group you name there will never be peace between Israel and Arabs. Hell, they've been fighting with each other for a thousand years.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  9 months, 2 weeks ago
      i suspect as long as the deep state is enriched by death and destruction the ridiculous fight will continue. I think Most people would not care about any other group if they were not taught to hate.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo