I Wish I Were In Paris

From war to peace and politics to gossip, if we have an opinion on something we'll share it here.

Monday, January 28, 2008

Barack Obama: The Biggest Threat We've Got


With a title like that, you know I've got to have lost my fucking mind, right?

Nah. Not today.

Barack Obama is the single biggest threat we've got in this country and if you don't believe me, just hold on for the ride.

What constitutes a threat to this country? Someone or something that could do great damage to the country, right?

Before you Obama cultists out there get your underwear all knotted up, Hillary Clinton is a threat, too. The difference between her and Obama is that the Obama cultists are drinking the Kool-Aid, actually believing that he's going to do something for them, that he's "uniting" the country.

I think these people should seek professional help. They've been brainwashed by the culture and by the media that perpetuates that culture.

You'd never catch me voting for Hillary Clinton. You'd also never catch me voting for Barack Obama.

Understand something about Barack Obama. Virtually everything you've heard him say and everything you've heard someone say about him is either a lie or a complete twist of history as we should know it.

Today, Ted Kennedy, in endorsing the Illinois senator, said that Barack Obama opposed the Iraq war.

This is a complete twist of history.

Allow me to explain if you need it.

Barack Obama could not have opposed the war in Iraq, at least not on record, because Barack Obama never had to vote for the damn thing in the first place. Ted Kennedy's a great liar, isn't he?

What Teddy Boy didn't tell you or me or anyone else for that matter is that his friend, his new coattail pal, has voted on numerous occasions to fund and thus extend the war in Iraq.

Barack Obama's history gets just a bit murkier, doesn't it?

Further, Obama has never once said that he intends to end the war. I haven't even heard this at one of his numerous rallies with all of the Kool-Aid drinkers waving their signs and their banners and their flags.

He has no plan to end this massacre and guess what, ladies and gentlemen? You're going to be sending your children to this massacre under President Barack Obama just as surely as people have sent their children to the meat grinder under Bush.

And that leads me to my next point.

Barack Obama knows nothing of history.

And this is truly sad for a guy that has degrees and a college education and is revered as being very well learned.

A couple weeks back, he had an interview with the Reno Gazette, in which he said, "Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundementally different path because the country was ready for it."

Well, leaving aside the fact that Reagan was a scumbag and should have never been president (but again, like with Obama himself, the people of this country drank the Kool-Aid and fell for the actor who lied to their faces), let's take that statement apart.

Let's start with Bill Clinton.

Far be it from me to be a fan of Bill Clinton. I consider the man to be an unindicted war criminal, as I consider every president of the United States to have been. If I had my way, Bill Clinton would be in prison, wiling away his days, scratching hash marks against his prison wall. So would Old Man Bush, Dumbfuck Bush, Reagan's bones, Jimmy Carter, and so on all the way back to Washington. Dig 'em up, toss them in a cell and let's get on with telling the truth.

But I digress...

The statement about Bill Clinton was made to provoke a reaction. Obama's learning politics fast.

The comment about Nixon, however, proves Mr. Obama's ignorance of history. And he can almost be excused for it, because Barack Obama was six years-old when Nixon became president for the first time, ten when he became president the second and twelve when Nixon flew away in disgrace.

The thing is, I can't excuse him for it because he's speaking as if he's some kind of authority on the subject. And because he wants to be president.

Anything Barack Obama knows about Richard Nixon, he knows from history books. Thus, I feel as qualified to talk about Nixon as Obama does. But, unlike Obama, I don't presume myself to be an expert on these things and thus I don't pass judgment as arbitrarily as he does.

However, because I'm just an asshole, I do want to talk about what appears to be Obama's hero worship of Reagan.

Obama says, "[Reagan] put us on a fundementally different path because the country was ready for it."

And that fundementally different path had sign posts like Iran-Contra and union-busting and arming Saddam Hussein on it.

And the Kool-Aid continued to flow as a spokesgeek for Obama came out and said, "But Hillary Clinton liked Reagan, too." Not an actual quote but it might as well have been. His actual quote ended with this:

"It's hard to take Hillary Clinton's latest attack seriously when she's the one who supported George Bush's war in Iraq, the most damaging Republican idea of our generation."

That spokesgeek's name is Bill Burton and Burton shows his ignorance by, of course, leaving out the fact that the Democratic Congress, Barack Obama included, has voted to continue this war, which, by the way, started not in 2003 but in 1991 and continued right up through Bill Clinton's eight years (just one of the reasons Bill Clinton should be in jail) and right on through the eight years of Bush.

Is it just me or is everyone in the Obama camp ignorant of everything?

I quote now from a piece by one of the few decent journalists on the planet, John Pilger, as he wrote in June of last year:

"In the meantime, Iran is being softened up, with the liberal media playing almost the same role it did before the Iraq invasion. And, as for the Democrats, look at how Barack Obama has become the voice of the Council On Foreign Relations, one of the propaganda organs of the old liberal Washington establishment. Obama writes that while he wants the troops home, 'We must not rule out military force against long-standing adversaries such as Iran and Syria.' Listen to this from the liberal Obama: 'At moments of great peril in the past century, our leaders ensured that America, by deed and by example, led and lifted the world, that we stood and fought for the freedom sought by billions of people beyond their borders."

Pilger writes earlier of the absurdity that is/was John Wayne.

I want you to re-read Obama's final comments in the paragraph above and tell me that it doesn't sound like John Wayne should be reading them.

If there's one thing I can't brook, it's bullshit like the statement as made by Obama as read by John Wayne.

Moments of great peril? In the last 100 years, what moments of great peril?

Leaders leading by deed and example? Whom?

Lifting the world? Yeah, to see if they can find oil under there.

And standing and fighting for freedom for billions in other countries? Name one of these countries that didn't have people already inside fighting for their own freedoms. In many cases, when the US decided to get "involved", it destroyed the movement. In many cases, the US then declared these movements to be outlaws, rebels, terrorists.

Again, Barack Obama proves his ignorance towards history. And the Kool-Aid continues to flow.

And this is why he's the biggest threat we've got. Because he can sit there and smile and talk about how he's going to bring change and how he's good for America and how he's a uniter and not a divider (where have I heard that one before?) and, meanwhile, he's got no substance, no plans and no sembalance of difference from the current puppet that sits in the Oval Office playing video games.

I've stated already that I wouldn't be voting for Hillary Clinton so for those out there that think this is a hit piece on Obama for the purposes of making her look oh-so-much-better, please read slower.

For those that plan on voting for Obama, I'd dearly love to hear from you. Tell me why you think Barack Obama is the man to lead this country and why you think that he's not going to be beholden to the puppetmasters behind the throne. And please don't mention the names Hillary or Bill Clinton in your explanation.



  • At 11:30 AM, Blogger Robert Rouse said…

    Wow! Since when did you have to cast a vote in the Senate to be opposed to the war from the beginning? I guess if that's the criteria, then I've never been opposed to the war and do not oppose it to this day. I know I keep saying I oppose the war. I've given speeches against the war. I've marched in DC, Chicago and even Crawford, TX against the war, but unless I've voted in the Senate against the war, I'm a liar who is completely twisting the facts. Oh well.

  • At 5:51 PM, Blogger Christopher Grant said…

    What I said, and what you would have understood, had you taken the time to digest what I said before going absolutely bugfuck, is that we have no idea whether or not Obama was against the war before he came into the Senate.

    Do you know Barack Obama personally? Because, if you do, then you should have him contact me. It'd be a fun conversation.

    We have no record that Barack Obama was against the war in Iraq when it was first drawn up.

    When someone runs for office, especially as high an office as President of the United States, it is common to check their record.

    As far as I know, you're not running for president so I don't really care one way or the other about your record.

    I never said that you had to be in the Senate to oppose the war. Those are your words, not mine. I simply pointed out the fact that there's no record of Barack Obama voting against the war.

    I find it convenient and amusing that Obama can go back and say, "Oh, yeah, yeah, I was against it" without someone asking, "But would you have voted against it?"

    It's a complete pass.

    Your outrage is commendable. Unfortunately, it's misplaced.

    I wonder what you think of my follow-up piece about these "truth squads" that the biggest threat, which I will clarify again momentarily, along with Hillary Clinton, want to send out to roam of their free will "responding" to "situations" as they deem necessary.

    I called Obama the biggest threat we (that's America) have in this country at this very moment because he's virtually untouchable. Which I believe I said in the piece but who knows? After all, you think I said you had to be in the Senate to be against the war.

    Anything anyone says about him is denounced by his supporters, sycophants really, as lies.

    Fact Number One, which Obama cannot deny, is that he took money from a criminal, namely "Tony" Rezko. While Hillary Clinton may or may not have taken money from criminals, that's deflecting the issue. Did Obama take money from Rezko? The answer is yes. Yet, when it came out, Obama and his cronies and his followers denied it until finally, it was proven that he did and Obama was the one to prove it, returning the cash or giving it away to charity.

    Fact Number Two. Obama wants to attack Pakistan, a nuclear-armed country. Is he out of his fucking mind? Apparently. But his reasons are obscured and we're not supposed to look any further than that. His followers and cronies and he himself deny this statement of fact, even with Obama's words right there in the public record.

    The reason he wants to bomb Pakistan is because his foreign policy advisor wants to bomb Pakistan.

    Do you know who his foreign policy advisor is?

    Have you ever heard of Zbigniew Brzezinski? Do you know his history? Do you understand that Brzezinski is responsible for this country being involved in Afghanistan not once but twice in the last thirty years? Once, via the Mujahadeen and the second time, after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Do you understand who you're going to vote for, if indeed you're going to be voting for Barack Obama?

    Fact Number Three. Barack Obama doesn't want to remove troops from Iraq and bring them home. This is a proven fact.

    On June 4 of last year, Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post wrote a commentary titled Stay-The-Course Plus. In it, Hiatt explains the differences and similarities between Mitt Romney, Barack Obama and George W. Bush.

    Hiatt quotes Obama numerous times. At one point, Obama says, "After Iraq, we may be tempted to turn inward. That would be a mistake. The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew."

    That quote is nearly a direct lift from Brzezinski's playbook. Oh, yeah, and Manifest Destiny, too.

    Obama supporters say that he would remove troops from Iraq. That is a distortion of the facts, often known as a lie. The fact is pointed out by Hiatt.

    "Obama dwells more on Bush's failures and the value of diplomacy and endorses a 'phased withdrawal' of U.S. troops from Iraq. But even there, the differences are not as stark as the candidates would like them to appear. Obama would maintain in Iraq enough troops 'to protect American personnel and facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces, and root out al Qaeda."

    Sounds a bit like what's happening now. So, without jumping to too much of a conclusion, I guess Obama would, to quote a moronic president, stay the course.

    Hiatt continues:

    "And the similarities dwarf the differences. Both want bigger, not smaller, armed forces: Obama calls for an additional 92,000 ground troops, Romney for 100,000."

    Doesn't sound to me like Obama wants to change anything. What are those 92,000 ground troops for, I wonder. Perhaps an invasion of Iran or Pakistan, again places that Obama has said he has no problem attacking.

    Here's Obama again from the Hiatt piece:

    "To defeat al Qaeda, I will build a twenty-first-century military and twenty-first-century partnerships as strong as the anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War to stay on the offense everywhere from Djibouti to Kandahar."

    Now he wants to go to war (or "spread democracy" as it's more commonly known within the circles of power and for public consumption) in parts of Africa.

    What the fuck is this guy about? I thought it was peace but apparently not.

    Finally, Obama says, "We can be this America again. An America that battles immediate evils, promotes an ultimate good, and leads the world once more."

    I guess he's talking about an America that never existed.

    Look, you opposed the war, you marched against it, so I'm guessing you know about the carnage that this country has produced since it started and before.

    Is this not a fictious America that this "savior" is talking about?

    Obama supporters would plug their ears and cover their eyes at the mention or sight of these words. They wouldn't cover their mouths, though, as they would shout to high heaven about how I must be racist for opposing him or how I must be a liar for opposing him.

    When, in fact, it is Obama (and Clinton and Romney and McCain and Huckabee) that are lying.

    What I'm asking is for people to get informed and stop latching onto people with messiah complexes. If I have to use language that you or anyone else doesn't like, so be it. At least it's the truth.

  • At 1:13 AM, Blogger Robert Rouse said…

    What "proof" do I have that Obama was against the war before he joined the Senate? Try the speech he gave in 2002 - here's a link to part of his speech - the rest of the video is of others finishing his speech.


    I hope that does it for you.

  • At 7:26 AM, Blogger Christopher Grant said…

    Actually, no, it doesn't do it for me.

    While I'll admit you took the time to find something to correct me on Obama's pre-Senate stance, I'd dearly love to see your response to the rest of the points I raised.

    What about the proposed 92,000 ground troops and what they're for?

    What about the slumlord payola?

    What about the "twenty-first-century military"?

    What about Obama's connection with Brzezinski?

    What about his seemingly need to attack Pakistan and Iran?

    And what about his fictional America, the one that promotes "ultimate good"?

    If you're going to vote for Obama, you should be able to defend his statements and his policies and his associations to me or anyone else.

    Enlighten me. I look forward to it.

  • At 7:28 AM, Blogger Christopher Grant said…

    Oh, and his Iraq policy of maintaining enough troops "to protect American personnel and facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces, and root out al Qaeda" and how it differs from that of George W. Bush.

    I look forward to hearing from you again.

  • At 9:56 AM, Blogger Robert Rouse said…

    Okay, to begin with, I didn't have to look for the information about Obama's pre-war stance. I already had that information because I actually do research and don't just take blanket statements as fact.

    What about the proposed 92,000 ground troops and what they're for?

    Obama's reasoning for an additional 92,000 troops have NOTHING to do with Iraq. The reasons are quite sensible if you take the time to think about it. He believes we need those additional troops to buttress our forces in case they're needed in the future so we.

    a. do not have to rely on the National Guard and keep them available for domestic emergencies like natural disasters.
    b. do not have to keep our troops in constant rotation with no relief after a tour of duty. Our troops need two years stateside for every year they serve overseas.

    What about the slumlord payola?

    What payola? Obama bought property next to land owned by Rezko. He did work for a firm that did work for Rezko and according to the law firm, Obama did less than five hours of research on the case. When Rezko made donations to Obama's Presidential campaign, Obama sent it back. You can check out this information at FactCheck.org.

    What about the "twenty-first-century military"?

    I'm not just someone who has fought for peace with my blood sweat and tears, I am also a veteran of the US Navy. I see nothing wrong with being prepared for the future. It's much better than just sitting back and hoping we are never attacked.

    What about Obama's connection with Brzezinski?

    Let's see. From what I recall, Jimmy Carter's former national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski has offered his assistance and advice to the Obama campaign and I'm in agreement with what Brzezinski had to say. He believes we need to step back from the aggressive nature of the Bush administration and try to bring dignity back to the the White House and the country. Why do you have a problem with that?

    What about his seemingly need to attack Pakistan and Iran?

    I don't believe he EVER said we NEED to attack either country. He believes we should have the right to defend ourselves, and as for Pakistan, he thinks if that country is not going to do anything about Bin Laden and al Qaeda, then if we get clear intelligence on Osama's whereabouts or other al Qaeda leaders and Pakistan will not do anything or give us permission, that we need to go after them anyway. On this I don't really agree with Obama, but I can understand his frustration. Earlier this week, the CIA actually used a drone to kill an al Qaeda leader inside Pakistan. By the way, Obama isn't advocation a full blown invasion of either country, just quick strikes by either drones or special forces in the event of an emergency.

    And what about his fictional America, the one that promotes "ultimate good"?

    A pretty haughty goal indeed. But what's wrong with going after the goal?

    I believe the ONLY troops he wants to keep in Iraq are embassy guards. This is no different than what Edwards and Clinton were saying. However, it is hugely different than what George Bush is doing and if you can't see that, then there is no need for me to respond any further.

  • At 4:08 PM, Blogger Christopher Grant said…

    Oh, jeez, where to begin?

    I liked the dig about the research bit. Applause for that one.

    But as for the rest of it, like I said, where to begin?

    I believe I already said that Obama gave back the slumlord payola. However, I'd like to know why you would take money from a slumlord with a record such as Rezko's in the first place.

    You might want to do some research of your own on the ONLY troops that Obama wants to keep in Iraq.

    I provided you with the story, I told you the date, the newspaper, the title of the piece and the author of the piece and even gave you the quote from Obama.

    I'll do it again.

    Fred Hiatt, Washington Post, Monday, June 4, 2007 and the title of the piece is "Stay-The-Course-Plus".

    Obama's quote is that he would keep enough troops in Iraq "to protect American personnel and facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces and root out al Qaeda."

    That's not embassy guards. And that's not any different than what Bush claims to be doing right now. Not even by an inch.

    Or did I miss something?

    For the record, I don't believe George W. Bush, either.

    As for deciding, without permission from Pakistan to invade Pakistan (invasion can mean anything you want it to mean) to go hunting for a ghost, are you telling me that you really believe we should do whatever we wish to do? Again, that sounds an awful lot like Bush policy.

    Exactly what kind of emergency would you be comfortable with invading Pakistani sovereignty for? And how would we, as the public, know that it was justified? Because Obama assures us of this? How is that any different from Bush policy?

    As for Iran, Obama has been quoted as saying that no option is off the table. Again, sounds like a Bush policy statement.

    In fact, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have made statements that even nuclear weapons are a possibility. Do either of them understand what a nuclear weapons "exchange" means?

    I'm glad you're in agreement with Brzezinski and his "Grand Chessboard" strategy.

    You say he believes we need to "step back from the aggressive nature of the Bush Administration" and yet, he has a history of the same kind of aggression, particularly when it concerns the Russians.

    I see you have the Brzezenski quote about dignity down pretty well.

    I find it interesting that Zbig isn't all that concerned about economic development or alleviation of poverty or national sovereignty for other countries against the IMF but dignity to be returned to the White House and, supposedly, the country.

    All the better to hide the iron fist with, I guess.

    When everyone believes the smiling face, no one sees the fist coming in to punch them, do they?

    Your comment in response to my question about the twenty-first-century military sounds a lot like a Republican-chicken-with-his-head-cut-off argument.

    It's much better than just sitting back and hoping we are never attacked sounds a lot like, "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here."

    Exactly how is that "a change", to quote a certain Senator from Illinois?

    And the 92,000 troops.

    I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I ever said that they had anything to do with Iraq. In fact, if I look back, I believe I simply asked what they'd be used for.

    I have a better question. Who's going to join up? Perhaps people that vote for Obama will quickly get in line and put pen to paper. I think not but who's to say?

    While it would be nice to have the National Guard come home, as they aren't called the National Guard for nothing, I don't see that happening. Not under Obama, not under Clinton, not under anyone.

    There isn't going to be a stomp on the brakes and quick turn of the wheel because a Democrat makes it into office. It just isn't going to happen.

    For the umpteenth time, the reason I believe Barack Obama is the biggest threat we have in this country is because he's not questioned about anything he says, anything he does, anything he stands for or against, or anyone that backs him.

    When something like that happens, I start to wonder why.

    Finally, the ideal America.

    The ideal America would be an America that minds its own business and doesn't go looking for trouble because it feels like it. The ideal America would be an America that takes care of its own house at the same time it helps others to take care of theirs. The ideal America would be an America that doesn't march off to war based on "actionable intelligence", whatever the hell that means.

    Maybe you're a true believer. Maybe you've had a nip of the Kool-Aid.

    I tend to be a bit of a realist. Because of that, I know that come January 20, 2009, it's going to be garbage in, garbage out.

  • At 6:57 PM, Blogger Christopher Grant said…

    For the edification of anyone out there that might agree with our friend, Robert Rouse, and think that Zbigniew Brzezinski is just a cuddly, sweet grandfatherly kind of a guy, I offer the following from John Pilger's excellent book, Freedom Next Time.

    As found on page 274:

    "The Afghani mujahedin - and the Taliban and al-Qaida - were effectively created by the CIA, its Pakistani equivalent, the ISI, and Britain's MI6. In admitting this, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser in the late 1970s, has disclosed Carter's directive to bankroll the mujahedin and America's collaboration 'with the Saudis, the Egyptians, the British, the Chinese [to start] providing weapons to the mujahedin'. Regarded in Washington as something of a guru of Pax Americana, Brzezinski believed that the post-colonial liberation movements and their gains throughout the 'third world' presented a challenge to the United States, as demonstrated by the recent American humiliation in Vietnam. Moreover, the Anglo-American client regimes in the Middle East and the Gulf, notably Iran under the Shah, were vulnerable to gathering forces of insurrection."

    Page 275:

    "For Washington, the problem with the PDPA (People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan) was that it was supported by the Soviet Union. At Brzezinski's urging, and unknown to the American public and Congress, President Carter authorised $500 million to fund and arm the mujahedin: in effect, to set up what the Americans would now describe as a terrorist organization. The aim was to overthrow the Afghan government and to draw the Soviets into Afghanistan.

    "In an interview in 1998, Brzezinski said:

    "'According to the official view of history, CIA aid to the mujahedin began during 1980, that is after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan on 24 December 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was on 3 July 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to provoke a Soviet military intervention ... We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.'

    "Brzezinski was asked if, having seen the consequences, he had any regrets. 'Regret what?' he replied."

    On pages 278 and 279:

    "In his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives, Brzezinski writes, 'Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some 500 years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power.' He defines Eurasia as all the territory east of Germany and Poland, stretching through Russia and China to the Pacific Ocean and including the Middle East and most of the Indian subcontinent. The key to controlling this vast area of the world is Central Asia. Dominance of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan ensures not only new sources of energy and mineral wealth, but a 'guardpost' over American control of the oil of the Persian Gulf.

    "The first priority has been achieved, says Brzezinski. This is the economic subjugation of the former superpower. Once the Soviet Union had collapsed, the United States looted some $300 billion in Russian assets, destabilising the currency and ensuring that a weakened Russia would have no choice but to look westward to Europe for economic and political revival, rather than south to Central Asia. What Brzezinski calls 'local wars as responses to terrorism', such as the invasion of Afghanistan, are the beginning of a final conflict leading inexorably to the dissolution of national governments and world domination by the United States. Nation states will be incorporated in the 'new order', controlled solely by economic interests as dictated by international banks, corporations and ruling elites concerned with the maintenance (by manipulation and war) of their power. 'To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires,' [Brzezinski] writes, 'the grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep the tributaries pliant and protected and to keep the barbarians from coming together.'

    "Surveying the ashes of the Soviet Union he helped to destroy, the Islamic jihad he helped generate and the terrorism he supported, Brzezinski mused: did it matter that all this had created 'a few stirred up Muslims'? On September 11, 2001, 'a few stirred up Muslims' provided the answer. When I met Brzezinski in Washington in 2003, I asked him if he regretted the consequences. He became very angry and did not reply."

    This is just a taste of what Zbigniew Brzezinski is all about. Just the tip of the iceberg. I'm ready to provide more information anytime.

    Contrary to what Robert Rouse or any other strident Obama supporter would have you believe, Brzezinski is more than just an occasional advisor to Barack Obama.

    Contrary to what Robert Rouse or any other strident Obama supporter would have you believe, Brzezinski does not want to step back from the aggressive nature of Bush policy. He simply wants to redirect it in his favorite direction, anything that goes towards the Russians.

    This is just one of the reasons I have called Barack Obama "the biggest threat we've got" in this country.

    The problem with Obama supporters is that they can't see past his smile, his words and his promises and it's actually both sickening and ho-hum, as America inevitably gets the government they deserve and not the government they need.

    And, finally, just to stave off anyone that would say, "But Hillary's connected to the murderous bitch Madeleine Albright", I say, "Yeah, she is. Both connected and Albright is a murderous bitch." To repeat again, as I have repeated since I wrote the piece that these words are connected to, I don't support any of the candidates in the election, as they are all warmongers of one degree or another.


Post a Comment

<< Home

People Who Are Violent to Animals ... Rarely Stop There
Palm Springs Real Estate
Air Filter