Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by THUNDER on January 10, 2012 at 11:36am

Doubtfull it will ever pass Obumers desk . he has a stangle hold on AMERIKA now . 4 more yrs. , it will be all but over .

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by M. Martin on January 13, 2012 at 6:22am

It doesn't really matter now, does it? With PA II already enacted, the feds and Mossad don't NEED a reason to detain and murder you. If you're former military, anti-illegal amnesty, anti-gay agenda, pro-white, pro-1st & 2nd Amendment, you're considered a suspected domestic terrorist. Basically, if you adhere to the good, old fashioned ways you're a criminal. America has become a Zionist Occupied Government, the dog that gets wagged by it's jewish tail.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by THUNDER on January 13, 2012 at 2:01pm

Ya heard this BS before . Don't beieve it .

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hammer on January 14, 2012 at 6:23am

Americans Ignored NDAA Precedents At Their Peril
Wednesday, 11 January 2012, 6:12 pm
Column: Sherwood Ross

Americans Ignored NDAA Precedents At Their Peril

By Sherwood Ross
January 11, 2012

“I believe,” warned James Madison in a speech to the Virginia Convention on June 16, 1788, “there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

Surely, this is the story behind the New Year’s Eve, 2011, signing by President Obama of the National Defense Authorization Act(NDAA). While they were merry-making and tootling horns, NDAA stripped Americans of the last vestiges of their liberties. Now that President Obama can order the military to arrest and imprison you indefinitely on suspicion without trial, your First Amendment rights of speech, press, assembly, and petition have no meaning. Who are you going to assemble with from your jail cell?

NDAA is only the most recent chapter in a creeping totalitarian horror story going back decades. President Harry Truman vetoed the Internal Security Act of 1950 that codified indefinite detention without trial but his veto was overturned by Congress. Truman called the Act "the greatest danger to freedom of speech, press, and assembly since the Alien and Sedition Laws of 1798, a "mockery of the Bill of Rights" and a "long step toward totalitarianism.”

That Act, a.k.a. the McCarran-Walter Act, was aimed at the Communist Party of the United States and authorized incarceration of those who would “probably engage in espionage or sabotage.” At the time it would have been difficult to think of any example of any known U.S. Communist Party member anywhere engaging in sabotage. By contrast, it was about the same time the CIA was getting off to a jump start at overthrowing foreign governments by force and violence.

Under the Act, prominent individuals considered subversive were barred entry to the United States, limiting the free speech of American citizens. Among them: Argentine novelist Julio Cortazar, Colombian novelist Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Chilean poet Pablo Neruda, and British novelist Graham Greene, Wikipedia recalls.

Totalitarianism continued its creep despite the objections of Senator George McGovern of South Dakota in 1970, who vainly blasted the “no knock” ordinance Congress pressed down upon that occupied territory known as the District of Columbia. This law allowed police to bust into any dwelling without a court order. McGovern referred to it as the Big Brother Act, pointing out that “your home is no longer your castle and your liberties are no longer your own.” That was but one small foretaste of today’s police state powers.

In 1978, President Jimmy Carter signed into law the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act(FISA) that violated the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It set up the FISA Court, and later the FISA Court of Review, true "Star Chambers" that international law Professor Francis Boyle of the University of Illinois says "are nothing more than rubber stamps for government requests for unconstitutional surveillance on U.S. citizens."

"With the FISA Amendments Act approved by Obama," Boyle continues, "there is nothing left of the Fourth Amendment that protects 'The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.' I do not understand how any self-respecting U.S. Federal Judge can serve on the FISA Court and the FISA Court of Review and actively participate in the interment of the Fourth Amendment."

According to Boyle, “After the “draconian Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act(AEDPA) passed by Congress in 1996 in reaction to the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, there was no legitimate law enforcement need for the Patriot Act.” Among other things, the AEDPA drastically limited the right of inmates to appeal their death sentences.

Enactment of the Patriot Act of 2003, rushed through Congress after 9/11 and since renewed at leisure, opened the spillways of totalitarianism to flood an entire nation. “From the gagging of our nation’s librarians under the national security letter statute to the gutting of time-honored surveillance laws, the Patriot Act has been disastrous for Americans’ rights,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU’s Washington office.

“In the panic following the events of 9/11, our nation’s lawmakers hastily expanded the government’s authority to a dangerous level and opened a Pandora’s box of surveillance,” she cautioned in a statement on ACLU’s web site.

Amazingly, there has been scant public outcry condemning these government actions. Few Americans objected when President Obama in March, 2011, by executive order decreed Guantanamo detainees could be held indefinitely---a policy that NDAA now applies to American citizens under the NDAA.

“No president,” said the ACLU, “should have the power to declare the entire globe a war zone and then seize and detain civilian terrorism suspects anywhere in the world---including within the United States---and to hold them forever without charge or trial.”

“By signing this defense spending bill(NDAA), President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “In the past, Obama has lauded the importance of being on the right side of history, but today he is definitely on the wrong side.”

“This amounts to the repeal of the U.S. Constitution,” Roth said, adding, “We have a Republican Party that is a Gestapo Party---to arrest American citizens and put them in concentration camps.” (Author’s note: NDAA could not have passed without the strong support of Democratic lawmakers.)

Roth goes on to say: “The (NDAA) law replaces an effective system of civilian-court prosecutions with a system that has generated the kind of global outrage that would delight recruiters of terrorists.”

With the NDAA, America has now returned to the disgraceful Korematsu Era, when President Roosevelt ordered the military to round up law-abiding Japanese-American citizens and stick them in concentration camps for the duration of World War II.

“By comparison,” Boyle says, “there is no end in sight to the bogus U.S. war on terrorism. The United States Supreme Court has never overruled the Korematsu case. And as a teacher of constitutional law, President Obama is fully aware of this loaded-gun that he now has in his hands waiting to fire on the American people by means of the NDAA.”

Boyle also warns that the NDAA, coupled with the notorious Pentagon and CIA “murder lists,” means President Obama could now start CIA and Joint Special Operations Command(JSOC) death squads and/or disappearance squads to render American citizens to Guantanamo Bay prison or abroad “for torture and murder.”

If most Americans are unfamiliar with JSOC, perhaps that’s because it operates in secret. That this menacing terror law has been enacted, like the unconstitutional laws that preceded it, with barely a murmur of outrage, speaks volumes about the manner in which the repressive aspects of these laws have been hidden from the general public. It also reflects on the indifference of the American people to the incineration of their once cherished civil liberties on the bonfires of totalitarianism.

You can’t say James Madison didn’t warn us in 1788.

*************

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hammer on January 14, 2012 at 9:33am

thanks william check out some of my other blog posts a lot of good info i posted this morning for the wram patriots, for ten years i have been on this and wondered when we would even get to this point, 2 years ago i was helping an 8th grader with his us history home work and could not believe what i was reading in his book!!!!!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Terminator Girl on January 14, 2012 at 6:45pm

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, and WRONG. Allen West voted for it and he should be voted out the next time he is up for election along with John cornyn, Kay Bailey H. .... every single damn on of them. It's Section 1031 ... and it's not how our dear elected legislators interpret, but what the LEGAL interpretation is... it has to do with the pesky, sneaky language "existing authorities" and therein lies the biggest lie, the biggest wool pulled over everyone's eyes. This is the ultimate control, tie it will making collection of rainwater illegal, now registering guns which will precede calling for the surrender of all guns ... I love Allen West, but he is wrong on this one.

[Continued in next reply, a simple explanation which needs to be shared]

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Terminator Girl on January 14, 2012 at 6:47pm

The simple explanation...
I think this article explains NDAA clearly, but also the reference to "storing food, guns, ammo, etc." I think one should read the entire article, but I am posting parts of the article that I see as the germaine... never mind, I'm posting the entire article.

Yes, the NDAA does apply to Americans, and here's the text that says so

(NaturalNews) In the aftermath of the signing of the NDAA by the traitorous President Obama, some citizens remain completely hoodwinked by the language of the bill, running around the internet screaming that the law "does not apply to American citizens."

This is, naturally, part of the side effect of having such a dumbed-down education system where people can't even parse the English language anymore. If you read the bill and understand what it says, it clearly offers absolutely no protections of U.S. citizens. In fact, it affirms that Americans are subjected to indefinite detainment under "existing authorities."p>

Let's parse it intelligently, shall we?

First off, the offending section of the bill that used to be called 1031 was moved to 1021. Here is the title:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...2hr1540enr.pdf

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

The two relevant sections to consider are titled and stated as follows;

(d) CONSTRUCTION. -- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

By PARSING the language here, we must split it into two sentences based on the "or" operator. This statement essentially means:

• Nothing in this section is intended to LIMIT the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

• Nothing in this section is intended to EXPAND the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

In other words, this section places no limits whatsoever of the "authority of the President" to use military force (against American citizens). Keep that in mind as you read the next section:

(e) AUTHORITIES. -- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

This section "e" is the section that the hoodwinked people on the internet are running around saying "protects American citizens" from the NDAA. But where do they dream up such language? If you read section (e) again, you'll discover it says nothing whatsoever about protecting American citizens from the NDAA. Instead, here's what it really says when parsed into two sentences based on the "or" operator:

• Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing LAW relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

• Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing AUTHORITIES relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

In other words, section (e) only says that it does not alter "existing authorities" relating to the detention of US citizens.

So to answer the question about whether this affects U.S. citizens, you have to understand "existing authorities."

What are those "existing authorities?"p>

Existing authorities already allow indefinite detainment and the killing of American citizens

As everyone who studies history well knows, the Patriot Act already establishes an "existing authority" that anyone suspected of being involved in terrorist-related activities can be arrested and detained without trial. If you don't believe me, just Google it yourself. This is not a debated issue; it's widely recognized.

Furthermore, President Obama already insists that he has the authority to kill American citizens merely by decree! As Reuters reported on October 5, 2011, a "secret panel" of government officials (who report to the President) can decide to place an American citizen on a "kill list" and then murder that person, without trial, without due process, and without even being arrested. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...79475C20111006

Importantly, as Reuters reports, "Two principal legal theories were advanced [in support of the kill list authority] -- first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001."

Are you getting this yet? So the authority ALREADY exists for the President to order the killing of an American citizen. All that is required is that they be suspected of being involved in terrorism in any way, and not a shred of evidence is required by the government to support that. There is no trial, no arraignment, no evidence and not even a hearing. You are simply accused and then disappeared.

Thus, the authority already exists, you see, and the NDAA openly states that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing AUTHORITIES..."

In other words, the NDAA does nothing to protect American citizens, and it piggy-backs on the Patriot Act as well as Obama's executive "kill list" justifications to essentially place all Americans in the crosshairs of government murderers or military action.

Rep. Justin Amash, a Congressman from Michigan, explains:

The key to subsection 1021(e) is its claim that sec. 1021 does not "affect existing law or authorities" relating to the detention of persons arrested on U.S. soil. If the President's expansive view of his own power were in statute, that statement would be true. Instead, the section codifies the President's view as if it had always existed, authorizing detention of "persons" regardless of citizenship or where they are arrested. It then disingenuously says the bill doesn't change that view. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?not...96584837047596

Follow more from Rep. Justin Amash at Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash

Storing food could get you labeled as a terror suspect

So then, you might be wondering, "What kinds of activities could get me accused of being involved in supporting terrorism?"

And here's the kicker, because all the following activities could cause you to be arrested, detained, interrogated and even murdered all under U.S. law, thanks to Obama:

• Criticizing the federal government.
• Using cash to purchase things.
• Storing food and medical supplies.
• Owning a firearm and storing ammunition.
• Standing still and minding your own business near a government building.
• Writing something down on a piece of paper near a government building.
• Using a pair of binoculars.
• Protesting for animal rights in front of a medical lab.
• Protesting your government (or Wall Street).
• Requesting to take more than a couple thousand dollars out of your bank account in cash.

You see, under existing authority, you could be labeled a "terror suspect" for engaging in any of these activities, and then LEGALLY arrested, detained, interrogated or even killed by the U.S. government, all under Obama's authority (or whatever next President takes over in Washington and perhaps does far worse things with that power...)

You are already enemy combatants, folks. The NDAA does absolutely nothing to protect you from its provisions. In fact, it openly states that it does not limit existing authorities -- authorities which already claim the right to subject you to indefinite military detention merely for being "suspected" of involvement with "terrorism," which could be interpreted to apply in practically any situation.

Reading between the lines
Get this through your heads, folks: to properly understand the NDAA (or any other bill), you have to learn to think like lawyers and tyrants.

They don't just put language right out in plain view that says, "Americans may never be arrested or detained without due process." Instead, they create a web of legalese statements that are cross-referenced, paraphrased and specifically engineered to obfuscate their intended purpose. This is designed to hide their true intentions, not to make them clear.

Furthermore, if the bill actually intended to protect Americans from the NDAA, then it should have contained language saying something like, "American citizens are specifically excluded from all the provisions of this bill, in its entirety."

I'll bet anyone a thousand dollars they won't find language like that in the bill. Because it doesn't exist! And the reason it doesn't exist is because the NDAA is clearly intended to apply to American citizens.

The writers of the bill have managed to fool a lot of everyday people who seem unable to parse language and read plain English with any depth of understanding. That is as much a failure of America's public education system as anything else. I find it astonishing that today's citizens can't even read and understand the grammatical structure of sentences written in plain English. This alone is a highly disturbing subject that must be addressed another day. For now, it's enough just to realize that the NDAA really does apply to you, me, and all our neighbors and friends. In signing it, Obama has cemented his place in history as the enabler of government-sponsored mass murder of its own citizens.

History does repeat itself after all, huh? Hitler, Stalin, Mao and now "Obama the enabler." While Obama himself probably won't engage in the mass murder of American citizens, have no illusions that a future President will try to use the powers enacted by Obama to carry out such crimes. Gingrich, anyone?
Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/034538_ND...#ixzz1iFsxB0TQ

One opinion expressed does not make it correct. We must neither accept, nor share, misinformation. It is OUR responsibility to share the TRUTH, not heresay. In this case, it is a legal interpretation of the law.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kilo [5th/21stBtn]42ndFF on January 15, 2012 at 1:34am

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-pre...
Presidential Signing Statement... It doesn't Matter what the Bill Says.... The Pres put in his own provisions..
"While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa'ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.p>"

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by OscarMike on January 15, 2012 at 1:37pm

First, let me me state for the record, that I believe our federal government is bloated, out of control and the direction it has taken over the past 100 years is catastrophic to personal liberty.
In addition, the president's signing statement concerning NDAA 2012, in my opinion, should be frightening to any freedom loving and Constitution abiding American.
I hope you will reserve judgment until you've read the entire post.

Please be aware that Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 (passed after Viet Nam to limit the President's authority) under which this bill falls, states in part:

c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

That being said, from Section 1021 of NDAA 2012 (bold, italics and underlined emphasis mine):

(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40;
50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces
of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection
(b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

Subsection (b)
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section
is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or
has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
forces.

I sincerely doubt that the definition of COVERED PERSONS fits just any old American citizen, especially the patriots on this website, and yes, I have a problem with the assassination of the dirt bag, Anwar al-Awlaki, even though, if the evidence is correct about him, I do believe he deserved to die. (just not by Presidential decree without due process)

SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.
(a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the
Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described
in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities
authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force
(Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition
under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1)
shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under
section 1021 who is determined—
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an
associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant
to the direction of al-Qaeda; and (notice the absence of the word “or” here OM)
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or
carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the
United States or its coalition partners.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—For purposes of this
subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war
has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no
transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section
shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section
1028.
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The President may
waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits
to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is
in the national security interests of the United States.
(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL
RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to citizens of the United States.

Notice paragraph (4) refers to the ability of the President to keep the military from detaining Al Qaeda or members of an associated force if he thinks there is a tactical or intelligence reason.
While it should have said in (4)(b)(1) “No citizen of the United States shall be detained in military custody under this section.”, I believe, based on the language in the rest of the bill, they are covering their asses in a situation such as that of Anwar al-Awlaki, which, as I stated above, I believe was handled badly.
Paragraph (d), referred to by Terminator Girl, pertains to the original Authorization for Use of Military Force, not the President's power in general.
If we expect to gain support for our cause from our members of Congress or other government officials, we have to be rigorous and thorough in our research and interpretations of governmental action. Just make sure you read the legislation and keep it in its proper context.
There is PLENTY of fodder for legitimate concern and action, and some (not me) might even take exception to treating Al Qaeda this way, but to take Colonel West on for this one may be to alienate a potential ally.
I hope it goes without saying, if things go so badly that the American citizenry takes up arms against our government, they will pull out all the stops and this law will look like child's play compared to what they come up with. No revolutionary can expect to be treated fairly by tyrants.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kilo [5th/21stBtn]42ndFF on January 15, 2012 at 4:27pm

Did the Pres consult with Congress about Libya? The Pres. also stated he will not confer with congress in 2012...(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The President may
waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits
to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is
in the national security interests of the United States.
So will the Pres Confer with Congress to obtain a waiver..? I don't think so..
With the addition of 3166 "The Enemy Expatriation Act" They can take your citizenship... Then you are not deemed a U.S citizen under (4)(b)(1),,

To add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Enemy Expatriation Act’.

SEC. 2. LOSS OF NATIONALITY.

(a) In General- Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)--

(A) in each of paragraphs (1) through (6), by striking ‘or’ at the end;

(B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘; or’; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

‘(8) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

‘(c) For purposes of this section, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war.’.

(b) Technical Amendment- Section 351(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1483(a)) is amended by striking ‘(6) and (7)’ and inserting ‘(6), (7), and (8)’.

I'm a Constitutional Law Scholar and Criminal Justice Student finishing my BA. My fellow Classmates and I have torn apart this Bill Multiple times and have always come up with the same conclusion.. With the Addition to the NDAA of H.R.3166 The Enemy Expatriation Act, This Bill is left wide open for interpretation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by OscarMike on January 15, 2012 at 4:46pm

3166 defines "hostilities" as any conflict subject to the laws of war. If I engage in an act of war against the United States, it will be with the intention of winning. If I win, they will be on the s#@t end of the stick. If I lose, I would expect them to do a lot worse to me than taking my citizenship.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by OscarMike on January 15, 2012 at 4:49pm

The president's action regarding Libya is one of the things I regard as a serious breach.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 7
• Next ›
• Page