Isn’t justice supposed to be blind?

Guest editorial from a local Chicoan. Leo’s background makes him imminently qualified to comment on classified information and the law. I hope you enjoy this one as much as I did. -Jack Lee

By Leo M.

With the political season in full swing, a number of issues have arisen that make me question the application of the judicial system to our politicians and others in the political game. I include in this group, those running for elected offices as well as the pundits and analysts that have a propensity for manipulating statistics and using rhetoric as a substitute for the truth. The dictionary definition of politicians is simple enough, but does not include the antics of deceit, and the bending of the truth and the law for political goals.

My focus today is on a current presidential candidate that, in my opinion, has managed to interpret federal laws in a manner that is deceitful, arrogant, and in violation of existing laws. Perhaps I’ve missed a loophole in the laws applicable to classified information that allows politicians to violate these laws with immunity. Is there a “Get out of jail card” for politicians that I’ve overlooked?hillary-clinton

The last case of classified information misuse I recall was by a U S Army General that provided classified information to his biographer. That didn’t work out well for the General, as his military career came to an end, he was found guilty of breaking federal laws for dissemination of classified information, and was heavily fined. Of course he was not a career politician.

It appears there is a special set of legal requirements applicable to politicians that break a law. It seems that for politicians, a mere apology erases the damage of breaking the law, with no legal consequences. It might depend on the politician’s position of importance, the longevity of political service, popularity, or money and power. Maybe having friends in the Justice Department, or the White House is a factor.

obama-petraeusMy focus is on a candidate that has the gall and arrogance to deny any wrongdoing, then turn around and apologize for the wrongdoing, and then expect to be absolved of breaking the law. Am I missing something here? How stupid does this person think American voters are? If it wasn’t such a serious matter, it would make a good comedy.

With an investigation underway by the FBI, State Department, and the Inspector General, maybe it will be determined that a law has been broken by this politician. I’m waiting to hear some response from the Attorney General, but I’m skeptical that any legal actions will be taken based on prior action by the Department of Justice. However, I am hopeful that the law will prevail and override political arrogance, and deceitful bending of the truth and federal law. Of course this is wishful thinking based on past history. It is a sad commentary on our Justice system when laws are allowed to be bent and broken by politicians, with no consequences.

There are many different levels of classification, ranging from top secret, down to a basic need to know level. I have worked on projects in the past that have required security clearances, and have always taken security levels very serious. I’ve even worked with unclassified nuclear information for nuclear power plants, which still requires close attention to security of information. In all cases, I knew I would be held responsible for maintaining confidentiality, and was trained to know the requirements and penalties involved.

TopSecret2I have experienced the classified material laws in action on a project that involved classified material. This involved an employee who left a classified document on a desk, in a locked office overnight. The individual was fired as a result, and taken away by federal officers. There is no room for intent in these security laws, they are absolute, and the training required and provided on these laws is clear and complete.

Stressing the importance of secure information was highlighted when I worked on the design of a facility for a large baking company. This project had a very strict confidentiality agreement, and everyone working on the project was required to sign the agreement. This was because of the proprietary recipes involved. No national security was involved, however confidentiality of information was a top priority.

After following the current issues about confidentiality and classified documents of the former Secretary of State, and presidential candidate, and knowing what I know now, I wouldn’t have trusted the candidate with a cookie recipe.

Today it seems that politics and ethics are divergent subjects, and I wonder where and when justice enters into the equation…

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Isn’t justice supposed to be blind?

  1. J. Soden says:

    $hrilLIARy for Prison 2016!

    • Dewey says:

      Let’s add all the other private servers that were used they all did it! Particularly GW and Cheney’s! There were 22 million missing emails in that admin!
      http://crooksandliars.com/2014/06/issa-blamed-ibm-software-loss-22-million

      Arrest GW Bush and Dick Cheney!

      As That Halliburton Troll Dick Cheney tries to throw stones to provide his cover others are finding the ethics and morals to speak out. What many Republicans hide from will have to be discussed. The world knows what Bush and Cheney are and will not trust or respect us until we admit it. Obama is just as guilty for giving them immunity.

      “In 2011, Wilkerson added that preparing Powell’s UN statement was “probably the biggest mistake of my life.” Calling for Bush and Cheney to be put on trial for their crimes, he said, “I’d be willing to testify, and I’ll be willing to take any punishment I’m due.”

      Four years later, Lawrence Wilkerson is still calling for Cheney to be held to account for starting a war based on falsehoods and obfuscation. Like Marine Major General Smedley D. Butler, Wilkerson is a true patriot who is not afraid to speak the truth – and in the spirit of Dwight D. Eisenhower, he is prepared to own up to his own mistakes.”

      http://ringoffireradio.com/2015/09/chief-of-staff-who-prepared-powells-un-statement-in-support-of-iraq-war-says-cheney-should-be-in-jail-for-war-crimes/

      http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44337958/ns/us_news-security/t/ex-powell-aide-dick-cheney-fears-prosecution-war-crimes/#.VftkyJdiCos

      Where did all our money Go?

      9/10/2001: Rumsfeld says $2.3 TRILLION Missing from Pentagon

      9/11/2001: All Pentagon Records disappear and building 7 collapses.

      Lets talk about this corrupt establishment politics crap.

      It crosses party lines. Let’s take care of this problem.

      This is not a football game folks. Get rid of this party crap and get real.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Leo, you are echoing the sentiments of a lot of Americans. There is no question in my mind, Hillary has received some preferential treatment. I want to see this issue of possible criminal conduct resolved for the good of the country. If they have something to charge her on, then they ought to do it. It only takes a couple of mishandled secret emails to prove their case.

  2. Tina says:

    Thank you Leo M. I appreciate your opinion and share your concern.

    I’ve noticed not all politicians, or their underlings, are exempt from prosecution or being fired. It happened several times during the Bush administration. (Examples: Scooter Libby and Alberto Gonzales) In the last seven years evidence piles up and overflows and politicians get away with ignoring subpoenas, obfuscation, and taking the fifth…we can’t even get a special prosecutor to look into it these matters. Illegal behavior bleeds from the top to department heads as well. The IRS targeting scandal is one example.

    There was a time when certain politicians, and those who protect them, could get away with bad behavior without much public scrutiny. This was due to the biased, limited media. Thankfully we have alternate sources now and it isn’t as easy to fool the public. Let’s hope as the people become more informed pressure will be brought to bear. We must demand better of those we elect. We must be vigilant if we’re to hold on to the rule of law.

  3. Tina says:

    Dewey your portrayal of what happened is typical of those who use terms like “right-wing echo chamber” and “flying monkeys.”

    From the article you linked to:

    Republican leaders said they were also concerned about the prospect of missing nuggets of presidential history, but they accused the Democrats of failing to acknowledge the White House’s ongoing efforts to retrieve the messages. Republican Ranking Member Tom Davis (R-Va.) said the White House has said it has since reduced the number of days’ worth of missing e-mails from 473 to 202 after discovering that those messages had been filed “in the wrong digital drawer” as part of a switch from the Lotus Notes to Microsoft Exchange e-mail system in 2002.

    White House Chief Information Officer Theresa Payton assured the committee that her office is working actively on a multi-step restoration process. Their early results have identified an unspecified number of the previously “missing” messages, though those results still have to be validated.

    Since the Democrats apparently didn’t pursue the matter further, I doubt anything close to what Hillary and her underlings have done, or Lois Lerner for that matter, actually went on. You are a victim of the spin to discredit Bush/Cheney.Did you see the Michael Moore film, “Farenheit” by chance? Salons take:

    To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of “dissenting” bravery.

    This describes perfectly the campaign to get Bush/Cheney!

    In contrast with the cooperative attitude of the Bush administration I give you Sharyl Attkisson. Attkisson provides a timeline that shows the level of Hillary’s cooperation which includes:

    (2012) After the ARB and Congress call for Benghazi-related documents, top Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Jake Sullivan are allegedly present at a document sorting session in the basement of the State Dept., according to Deputy Assistant Secretary Raymond Maxwell, who later told me he witnessed the operation. No law enforcement body contacted or interviewed Maxwell.

    December: I (then at CBS News) file a Freedom of Information Act request with the State Dept. for Benghazi-related emails and other information.

    Dec. 10, 2012: Clinton cancels a trip due North Africa and the mideast to “illness” and a “bug.” State Dept. does not disclose she has fallen and received a head injury.

    Dec. 13, 2012: State Dept. discloses that Clinton had “fallen” while suffering from a stomach virus sometime the previous week and gotten a “concussion” that was “not severe.” Bill Clinton would later say that her injury “required six months of very serious work to get over.”

    Clinton postpones imminent Congressional testimony which had been scheduled.

    (2013) Jan. 13: Reports say the clintonemail.com domain was established.

    Jan. 23: Clinton testifies to Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee where she utters her infamous “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

    March 18: Clinton will later name this as the date she began using a private server for government business.

    Sept. 11: Islamic extremists launch the terrorist attacks on U.S. compounds in Benghazi, Libya, killing Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

    October: Clinton convenes Accountability Review Board (ARB) to investigate State Dept. actions surrounding Benghazi.

    After the ARB and Congress call for Benghazi-related documents, top Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Jake Sullivan are allegedly present at a document sorting session in the basement of the State Dept., according to Deputy Assistant Secretary Raymond Maxwell, who later told me he witnessed the operation. No law enforcement body contacted or interviewed Maxwell.

    Former Clinton Deputy Asst. Secretary of State says he witnessed Benghazi document-sorting session

    Former Clinton Deputy Asst. Secretary of State says he witnessed Benghazi document-sorting session

    Nov. 7: Judicial Watch files Freedom of Information (FOI) Act request with State Dept. for Benghazi-related emails and other information.

    December: I (then at CBS News) file a Freedom of Information Act request with the State Dept. for Benghazi-related emails and other information.

    Dec. 10, 2012: Clinton cancels a trip due North Africa and the mideast to “illness” and a “bug.” State Dept. does not disclose she has fallen and received a head injury.

    Dec. 13, 2012: State Dept. discloses that Clinton had “fallen” while suffering from a stomach virus sometime the previous week and gotten a “concussion” that was “not severe.” Bill Clinton would later say that her injury “required six months of very serious work to get over.”

    Clinton postpones imminent Congressional testimony which had been scheduled.

    Dec. 18-19: Clinton writes Congress promising to implement ARB recommendations and ARB officials provide briefing on their findings.

    Judicial Watch files another FOI request with State Dept.

    Dec. 30: State Dept. discloses discovery of “blood clot” in her head from the concussion.

    2013 Jan. 7: Clinton returns to work after her concussion.

    Jan. 23: Clinton testifies to Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee where she utters her infamous “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

    Feb. 1: Clinton leaves State Dept.

    Feb. 25: Judicial Watch files two lawsuits against State Dept. for failing to lawfully respond to FOI requests.

    March 22: “Guccifer” hacks Clinton’s emails via aide’s account showing that Clinton had received confidential information from a public account.

    Nov. 26: State Dept. tells me (then at CBS News) that it has posted all documents responsive to my Benghazi FOI request from Dec. 2012.

    Dec. 10, 2012: Clinton cancels a trip due North Africa and the mideast to “illness” and a “bug.” State Dept. does not disclose she has fallen and received a head injury.

    Dec. 13, 2012: State Dept. discloses that Clinton had “fallen” while suffering from a stomach virus sometime the previous week and gotten a “concussion” that was “not severe.” Bill Clinton would later say that her injury “required six months of very serious work to get over.”

    Clinton postpones imminent Congressional testimony which had been scheduled.

    Dec. 18-19: Clinton writes Congress promising to implement ARB recommendations and ARB officials provide briefing on their findings.

    Judicial Watch files another FOI request with State Dept.

    Dec. 30: State Dept. discloses discovery of “blood clot” in her head from the concussion.

    2013 Jan. 7: Clinton returns to work after her concussion.

    Jan. 23: Clinton testifies to Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee where she utters her infamous “What difference, at this point, does it make?” comment.

    Feb. 1: Clinton leaves State Dept.

    Feb. 25: Judicial Watch files two lawsuits against State Dept. for failing to lawfully respond to FOI requests.

    March 22: “Guccifer” hacks Clinton’s emails via aide’s account showing that Clinton had received confidential information from a public account.

    August: Congress subpoenas Benghazi documents.

    Nov. 26: State Dept. tells me (then at CBS News) that it has posted all documents responsive to my Benghazi FOI request from Dec. 2012.

    (2014) June 13: Judicial Watch files a FOI request with State Dept. seeking Benghazi information and Clinton notes.

    August: State Dept. provides House Benghazi Committee with eight emails to or from Clinton that, for the first time, show her use of a private email account.

    October: State Dept. sends letters to Clinton and her three successors as secretary of state seeking work emails related to personal accounts.

    Nov. 18: House Benghazi Committee makes additional request for Clinton emails from State Dept.

    Dec. 5: Clinton privately turns over copies of 30,490 “work-related” emails to the State Dept. totaling 55,000 printed pages. No date has been provided as to when she deleted her “private” emails, but it is presumed to be around this time frame.

    (2015)Late Feb.: In discussions, the State Dept. informs the House Benghazi Committee that Clinton did not have a government email address, and that it had never had possession of her emails until her attorney first turned them over—in paper form—to the State Dept. in Dec. 2014.

    March 2: New York Times reports Clinton may have violated federal regulations by using personal email account hdr22@clintonemail.com for public business as secretary of state.

    March 4: Associated Press reports that Clinton’s personal email address traces to private email server at her Chappaqua, New York home registered under pseudonym.

    House Benghazi Committee privately issues two subpoena: one for emails from Clinton’s personal account, the other for documents it requested in Nov. 2014 (but did not receive) relating to 10 senior State Dept. officials.

    March 10: Clinton answers questions about her email practices for the first time. She tells reporters: It was more convenient to use the private server. … Last year, she deleted nearly 31,000+ emails that were “private.” She will not turn over her personal email server. She “fully complied” with the law.

    March 11: Associated Press sues State Dept. for Clinton emails and documents not provided under FOI request.

    May 22: State Dept. releases 296 Benghazi-related emails from Clinton’s private email account.

    June 22: House Benghazi Committee releases 60 emails sent to Clinton by Blumenthal, including some regarding Libya.

    July 28: Clinton revises her statement regarding classified email to say she is confident she never sent or received emails that were classified at the time.

    July 31: The federal judge in a Judicial Watch FOI suit, Emmet Sullivan, orders State Dept. to request that Clinton and top aides Cheryl Mills and Human Abedin confirm, under penalty of perjury, that they have produced all government records in their possession, return any other government records immediately, and describe their use of Hillary Clinton’s email server to conduct government business.

    Aug. 6: Cheryl Mills’ attorney tells Judicial Watch it has instructed Mills to “delete any and all electronic copies [of potential federal records] in her possession” after her anticipated production of records on Aug. 10. Judicial Watch files an emergency request to block the destruction.

    Aug. 11: Inspector General report to the Senate contradicts Clinton claims; some Clinton emails, says the IG, contained information that was classified at the time.

    FBI takes custody of Clinton server and thumb drives.

    Aug. 15: In a campaign appearance at the Iowa State Fair, Clinton revises her statement about classified email a second time, stating that she never sent or received any that were “marked” classified.

    Aug. 19: Clinton’s personal lawyer tells a Senate committee that all data, including emails, was erased from her server prior to it being turned over to the FBI.

    Clinton tells reporters the investigation surrounding her server “has nothing to do with me.” She contradicts the Inspector General by reiterating that she never sent or received classified material.

    Aug. 20: State Dept. tells Judge Sullivan Clinton did not use State Dept. issued or secure Blackberry device; Blackberries used by Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Human Abedin were likely destroyed.

    Sept. 8: A day after saying she had nothing to apologize for, Clinton says she’s “sorry” in an interview with ABC News.

    Oct. 22: Clinton is scheduled to testify before House Benghazi Committee on this date

    If you can produce a similar timeline that shows the Bush administration purposely and defiantly avoided and lied about the loss of emails I’d be happy to read it.

    ““In 2011, Wilkerson added that preparing Powell’s UN statement was “probably the biggest mistake of my life.” Calling for Bush and Cheney to be put on trial for their crimes, he said, “I’d be willing to testify, and I’ll be willing to take any punishment I’m due.”

    Sounds like a person that’s been threatened or bribed to me!

    “for starting a war based on falsehoods and obfuscation. ”

    the press willingly went along with this tripe which can easily be proven as false. Wikipedia:

    The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107–243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq.[2]

    The resolution cited many factors as justifying the use of military force against Iraq:[3][4]

    Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.

    Iraq “continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability” and “actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability” posed a “threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region.”

    Iraq’s “brutal repression of its civilian population.”

    Iraq’s “capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”.

    Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.

    Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.

    Iraq’s “continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations,” including anti-United States terrorist organizations.

    Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.

    The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.

    The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.

    The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.

    Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

    The resolution “supported” and “encouraged” diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to “strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq” and “obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”

    The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” in order to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.”

    An authorization by Congress was sought by President George W. Bush soon after his September 12, 2002 statement before the U.N. General Assembly asking for quick action by the Security Council in enforcing the resolutions against Iraq.[5][6]

    Of the legislation introduced by Congress in response to President Bush’s requests,[7] S.J.Res. 45 sponsored by (Democrat) Sen. Daschle & Sen. Lott was based on the original White House proposal authorizing the use of force in Iraq, H.J.Res. 114 sponsored by Rep. Hastert & (Democrat) Rep. Gephardt and the substantially similar S.J.Res. 46 sponsored by (Former Democrat Independent) Sen. Lieberman were modified proposals. H.J.Res. 110 sponsored by Rep. Hastings was a separate proposal never considered on the floor. Eventually, the Hastert-Gephardt proposal became the legislation Congress focused on.
    Passage of the full resolution

    Introduced in Congress on October 2, 2002, in conjunction with the Administration’s proposals,[3][8] H.J.Res. 114 passed the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296-133,[9] and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning, at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23.[10] It was signed into law as Pub.L. 107–243 by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

    Wikipedia:

    In March 2003 the United States government announced that “diplomacy has failed” and that it would proceed with a “coalition of the willing” to rid Iraq under Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction the US insisted it possessed. The 2003 invasion of Iraq began a few days later.

    Prior to this decision, there had been much diplomacy and debate amongst the members of the United Nations Security Council over how to deal with the situation. This article examines the positions of these states as they changed during 2002-2003. (Read on to find out what the leaders in Europe believed to be true prior to the iraq war)

    “9/10/2001: Rumsfeld says $2.3 TRILLION Missing from Pentagon”

    That was the result of an audit…ask the Clinton administration. (Also, you can’t possibly be surprised that a government bureaucracy couldn’t account for huge piles of cash?!!!)

    “9/11/2001: All Pentagon Records disappear and building 7 collapses.”

    Dude, a big jet flew into the Pentagon…you expect there would be nothing missing?

    “Get rid of this party crap and get real.”

    I agree there’s lots of “crap” going on in Washington but how would you replace the two party system?

    We are a republic and I am four square in favor of keeping it so be careful. (All emphasis mine)

  4. Tina says:

    My apologies to Leo M and the rest of you for the length of the comment above and for veering off subject. The ignorance at times is too much to bear without a fight!

    • Harold says:

      Tina , please no apology needed, one of the reasons I read this blog is the content and corrective information of both you Tina and Jack, and the contributions from many of your more traditional thinking posters, especially when dealing with crafted counter points that lean more toward larger government and less toward self reliance.

      The youth of today are being force fed a diluted version of information that only creates a mindset of Government dependence, specifically that leaning completely toward Liberal orientated goals, completely ignoring it’s many pitfalls and failures in the past while they are enticed with tax dollars along this path of social remodeling, and eventual dependence of large government.

      Gone it seems are the times when the American dream was what you could achieve on your own, through your own efforts. Both GOP and DNC are at fault for this, as both parties struggle and battle each other for controlling power, and their only concern for voters is using us as pawns in that game. once elected, gone are the campaign promises of working for our betterment, and replaced with their own needs of re-election.

      Thirty second political sound bites, name recognition and staged photo ops are what currently guides Americas voting, and I fear it will only get worst, with more entitlement handouts used to entice voters toward socialism.

      Todays youth, along with a large portion of middle aged and I’ll wager a large portion of todays Liberal manufactured government dependent voters want to appear educated in the political process, but in actuality their ignoring, or not being taught how the Socialistic pitfalls and failures of past events are being replicated to create todays increasing socially dependent governed. Instead they are guided blindly with entitlements (most could not even tell you where those monies come from)that built a increasing collective society of government dependency.

  5. Rick Clements says:

    If one uses common sense, it is clearly and easily available for any half intelligent human being to identify the “in your face” corruption being used by the Democratic Party and President O’Liar today.

    This corruption reality, and the ability to control and get away with using it; this is what the Democrats are really fighting to retain in this 2016 election. Since the Office of the Presidency directs and controls all Federal agencies under his/her purview, only a deaf, dumb, and blind man or woman could conclude that Obama had (behind the scenes) ordered the Justice Department to stall investigations on such obvious illegal violations, ie. the IRS, Lois Learner not brought to justice; Benghazi, the video was a front to protect Obama’s assertions that Al Qaeda was defeated in order to get himself re-elected, Fast and Furious gun running from Mexico, costing two men their lives, Benghazi costing four men their lives, and then there’s that idiot Congressman from Georgia who marched with Martin Luther King claiming “there’s no there there”!! President O’Liar has brought upon this country and allowed us and our children all; to view the worst example of how to be the “Worlds Most Powerful Human Being” and through political, not honest, assertions, became the dumbest example of being a Harvard graduate who spent 98% of his time in the Men’s Room during class.

    His decision to choose promoting his legacy and image over that of a completely stupidly negotiated Iranian Deal, he in fact chose a path of betraying his Constitutional obligation to protect all US citizens and their security within the United States of America; over that of his stupid worthless ego he calls a legacy. 71% of America disagrees with this Harvard educated piece of defecation. But as I have said, Progressive Liberals, “they know what’s best for you”! If Hitler had enlisted them, we would all be speaking German.

  6. J. Soden says:

    Love it when a simple comment can generate steam outta Dewey’s ears!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.