Archive for August 25, 2015

« WarSclerotic home page

Why the US government is on track to ‘normalizing’ ISIS

August 25, 2015

Why the US government is on track to ‘normalizing’ ISIS, NY Post, Alex VanNess, August 23, 2015

(That “normalizing” the Islamic State would be lunacy is itself a good argument that Obama will do it. — DM)

Photo: AP

How long will it take the United States to recognize the Islamic State as a legitimate actor?

That may sound ridiculous. After all, ISIS is a barbaric and sociopathic band of terrorists who proudly highlight their brutality over the Internet. Unfortunately, recent history suggests this doesn’t disqualify them, as horrific as it sounds, from eventual recognition.

Since before 9/11, the Taliban laid claim to numerous terror attacks on civilian populations throughout Afghanistan. They harbored Osama bin Laden, and since the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom, they’ve been directly responsible for the deaths of more than 2,000 American troops.

Yet in January, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest cryptically explained that the Taliban was not a terrorist group but instead falls under a “different classification.”

Earnest’s verbal gymnastics were deployed in the service of explaining away the president’s decision to trade five members of the Taliban for the release of American soldier-captive Bowe Bergdahl.

Hamas is an openly anti-Semitic terrorist organization that has claimed responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians, including several Americans. Since its creation, the Gaza-based Hamas has been dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews. Hamas is brutally repressive toward women and gays; they have a tendency to savagely drag dead bodies through the streets.

Last year, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas swore in a new unity government that incorporated Hamas-appointed ministers. Instead of cutting off financial support to the new government, as required by US law, the Obama administration jumped through hoops to legitimize the new government. Officials said they would continue supporting the Palestinian government because the new ministers were “technocrats” that “don’t represent . . . hard-core Hamas leadership.”

The legitimacy granted to Hamas by this administration is a reflection of the trend held by many pro-Palestinian protestors who now brazenly chant, “we are Hamas!” through the streets of US cities such as Miami.

Cuba has a long history of human-rights abuse. The Cuban government regularly harasses and imprisons dissidents and has been a state sponsor of terrorism for decades. Cuba continues to serve as a safe haven for terrorists and maintains close ties to both North Korea and Iran.

In 2013, Cuba was caught sending weapons to North Korea. It aids terrorist groups like the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, Iranian proxy Hezbollah and the Basque Fatherland of Liberty (ETA).

Despite this behavior, the administration still decided to take Cuba off the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism and has begun the process of normalizing the relationship between the United States and Cuba.

The State Department justified this removal by stating that “Cuba has not provided any support for international terrorism during the previous six-months” and citing vague promises that they “will not support acts of international terrorism in the future.”

So to recap, within this past year we have stopped referring to the Taliban as terrorists, provided de facto recognition and funding to Hamas and have opened up to the repressive terror-sponsoring Cuban government.

Why should we assume that ISIS will be treated any differently than these groups?

As each day passes, ISIS solidifies its presence in the region. Sure, ISIS commits terrible atrocities. The group regularly — and indiscriminately — beheads innocent people; rapes women and sells them as sex slaves and employs children as executioners.

But its leaders have undeniably been working to establish the Islamic State as, well, as a functioning state. They issue identification cards, pave roads, pick up trash, operate power stations and offer social-welfare programs.

ISIS has carved out its territory by filling the Middle East’s power vacuums, and are thus, in some places, the only game in town. How long before the international community recognizes the ISIS government?

The past precedent of legitimizing various terrorist groups and repressive dictatorships make this all too real of an issue. It’s imperative that the United States stops this trajectory of providing legitimacy to these regimes and turns back the ISIS tide, or we may one day soon be debating the opening of an embassy to the Islamic State in what used to be Iraq.

Alex VanNess is the manager of public information for the Center for Security Policy.

Categories: Cuba, Foreign policy, Hamas, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Islamic State, Obama, Obama's America, Obama's legacy, P5+1, Terrorism
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

Obama’s end-run around the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

August 25, 2015

Obama’s end-run around the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Power Line, Paul Mirengoff, August 25, 2015

In an article for Forbes, Harold Furchtgott-Roth argues that President Obama’s executive agreement with Iran violates and/or modifies the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1969. Thus, it cannot lawfully take effect without true congressional approval (as opposed to the process established by the Corker-Cardin legislation). Furchtgott-Roth’s article appeared about a month ago, but has only recently come to my attention.

It is axiomatic, I should think, that an executive agreement cannot supersede a treaty. As Furchtgott-Roth explains, treaties are the law of the land and have the status of federal statutes. As such, they cannot be overridden by executive action.

The Iran deal is not a treaty, nor is it a statute. It will not even muster the level of congressional support sufficient to enact a statute.

To be sure, Congress through the Corker-Cardin legislation agreed to process by which the Iran deal could take effect with less than majority support. It did so before it had seen the terms of the deal. Thus, says Furchtgott-Roth, it had no reason to believe that the terms would violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Indeed, the public statements of John Kerry indicated that there would be no clash.

In any event, the Corker-Cardin bill established a process to review an executive order, not a treaty amendment. I doubt that Congress can bind itself in advance (or at all) to a process to create or amend a treaty that differs from the one established by the Constitution.

The question thus becomes whether the Iran deal modifies the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Furchtgott-Roth presents a good case that it does:

1. Under Article I of the NPT, “Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty [US] undertakes … not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear weapon State [Iran] to … otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control [ICBMs] over such weapons or explosive devices.”

Yet the entire Iran Deal is a road map for Iran to obtain devices that provide “control over such weapons or explosive devices.” The Iran Deal lifts embargoes on missiles that could be used for nuclear weapons. The deal ends prohibitions on nuclear weapons after a fixed number of years. The deal gives access to Iran to hundreds of billions of dollars immediately, all or part of which can finance the acquisition of nuclear weapons or related components.

Thus the Iran Deal modifies or violates U.S. responsibilities under Article I of the NPT.

2. Under Article II of the NPT:

“Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.”

Yet there is nothing in the Iran Deal that limits its ability ultimately to obtain nuclear weapons and various related control devices such as ICBMs. The Iran Deal merely places a timeline on that acquisition. The Iran Deal modifies Article II of the NPT.

3. Under Article III of the NPT:

“Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agency’s safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.”

The Statute of the IAEA. . .states. . .:

[T]he Agency [IAEA] shall have the … responsibilities…To send into the territory of the recipient State or States inspectors, designated by the Agency after consultation with the State or States concerned, who shall have access at all times to all places and data and to any person who by reason of his occupation deals with materials, equipment, or facilities which are required by this Statute to be safeguarded…

Press accounts suggest that the Iran Deal does not provide for IAEA inspection “at all times to all places and data and to any person…” Partly, there is a 24-day notice and review requirement before any inspection. That is inconsistent with the NPT. Neither the Iran Deal nor press accounts indicate that IAEA inspection will be “at all times to all places.”

The Iran Deal modifies Article III of the NPT.

4. Article VIII of the NPT provides in detail a method to modify and amend the NPT. That is not the process used for the Iran Deal. Thus the Iran Deal modifies or violates U.S. responsibilities under Article VIII of the NPT. . . .

Assuming that this analysis is sound, i.e., that Obama’s deal modifies a treaty, the questions become: what can Congress do about it and what is Congress prepared to do?

I doubt that Congress is prepared to abandon the Corker-Cardin procedure. To my knowledge, there has been no sign of willingness to do so in the month since Furchtgott-Roth’s article appeared.

I also believe that if Congress did ditch Corker-Cardin and treated the deal as a treaty amendment (two-thirds vote needed in the Senate; no vote in the House), Obama would thumb his nose at Congress and proceed to implement his deal.

Categories: Diplomacy, Dishonor, Foreign policy, IAEA, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Obama, Obama's America, Obama's legacy, P5+1, U.S. Congress, U.S. Constitution, U.S. politics
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Mass Immigration and the Undoing of Europe

August 25, 2015

Mass Immigration and the Undoing of Europe, The Gatestone Institute, Vijeta Uniyal, August 25, 2015

  • In Germany, where traffickers are now dropping off illegal immigrants on Autobahns, authorities have reacted — not by trying to intercept or discourage traffickers, but by putting up new road signs alerting drivers of potential pedestrians on the highway.
  • Last month alone, more migrants landed on the shores of Greece than in the whole of 2014.
  • If the mainstream media keep reminding everyone how the rioting immigrant youths in France or Britain are driven by economic inequality now, imagine the scale of unrest once European welfare states cannot finance “half the planet” anymore and are forced to cut welfare benefits.
  • No one, however, especially the media, blames migrants for their own actions.
  • This is the real tragedy of the unfolding refugee crisis in Europe: apart from those fleeing combat zones, most migrants swarming European borders and coastlines do not appear to be in any real or dire need.

With the European Union surrendering its immigration policy to people smugglers, the immigration crisis in Europe keeps reaching staggering new heights. The word has gone out that Fortress Europe is scalable. From Morocco to Turkey, people smuggling has turned into an irresistibly big business.

From small-time thugs to the terror outfit Hamas — for $2500-$3000 per person smuggled — many evidently want to seize a slice of this lucrative business that was created by the EU’s collective inaction.

In Germany, where traffickers are now dropping off illegal immigrants on Autobahns, authorities have reacted — not by trying to intercept or discourage the traffickers, but by putting new road-signs alerting drivers of potential pedestrians on the highway.

Even before this year’s mass immigration began, Germany was struggling to deal with roughly a quarter of a million asylum applicants — without even accounting for the illegal immigrants already in the country. The recent wave of migration would push those figures to record heights.

The trend in Germany merely reflects the overall scale of the European immigrant crisis. In July 2015, an estimated 50,000 refugees entered Greece, a surge of 750 percent. Last month alone more migrants landed than in the whole of 2014.

In Germany, the head of Lower Saxony’s Municipal Federation, Marco Trips, told local reporters that the “system has already collapsed.” This sentiment is apparently shared by municipalities across Germany. In a historic move, the German federal government has now called in the military to assist in setting up new tent cities and providing basic amenities for ever-rising number of refugees.

The majority of those entering Europe illegally seem not to be fleeing armed conflicts, but seeking a better life in a welfare paradise. Europe’s answer is to throw money at the problem — money Europe does not have. Britain’s Defence Secretary has suggested that the UK’s £12 billion ($19 billion USD) foreign aid budget can “discourage” mass migration.

The European welfare system, funded increasingly by governments’ debt in recent decades, is showing signs of an impending collapse. There is no end in sight for Greece’s debt crisis, despite repeated bailout packages to the tune of €326 billion ($375 billion USD). Slow economic growth, high youth unemployment and an aging population makes the European welfare model increasingly untenable.

If the mainstream media keep reminding everyone how rioting immigrant youths in France or Britain are driven by economic inequality now, imagine the scale of unrest once European welfare states cannot finance “half the planet” anymore and are forced to cut welfare benefits.

1221African migrants camp out on the beach in the northern Italian town of Ventimiglia, along the French border, as they wait for the opportunity to cross into France. (Image source: AFP video screenshot)

Europe’s answer to this imminent financial doom is to create still more welfare dependents or, even better, “invite” them by failing to secure the borders.

EU bureaucrats not only refuse to implement basic border controls but rebuke any EU member state moving to secure its borders. European politicians and the mainstream media are up in arms against Hungary’s move to erect a border fence along its southern border. American public broadcaster PBS ran a report telling its viewers about Hungary’s “new Iron Curtain.” The Associated Press quoted unnamed “critics” who compared the Hungarian fence to “Communist-era barriers like the Berlin Wall.”

The EU bureaucrats in Brussels want to force a single asylum policy on all 28 member states, asking that they take in more migrants. According to this common asylum policy proposed by Brussels, asylum seekers entering EU would be divided among EU members.

Hungary, with 60,000 migrant arrivals so far just this year, entering mainly from Serbia, remains the most vocal opponent of the EU’s proposed policy.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has been virtually ostracized by European politicians and media, for not complying with EU’s immigration policy. Contrary to the EU’s position, he has called for a “distinction” between EU member-state citizens moving within Europe and non-EU foreigners. “There are economic immigrants who are just in search of a better life… Unfortunately in Hungary we can’t give jobs to all of these immigrants,” Orbán said, and called the EU’s proposal for member states to take in more refugees “absurd, bordering on insanity.”

Europe, itself reeling under a financial crisis, cannot provide housing, employment and social benefits to the thousands who each day land on European shores and cross over borders. German newspapers are full of countless reports of immigrants disappointed after arriving in Europe, almost always followed by a reporter’s plea for urgent action to address the said grievance. These “disappointments” often turn into violent clashes. Police across Germany have their hands full just to keeping rival migrant gangs from turning on each other or on officials.

No one, however, especially the media, blames migrants for their own actions. The mainstream media in Germany apparently refuse to connect the dots, so as not to “feed into negative stereotypes.” A columnist for Germany’s Tageszeitung even wrote of an elaborate government conspiracy that drives immigrants to turn violent — allegedly just to give them a bad name.

Tageszeitung also ran a story lamenting the “alarming conditions” of refugees landing on Greek islands. The article was accompanied by a photograph of smiling, well-fed, sturdy young men, posing for “selfies” on their smartphones while holding cigarettes in their hands. One of them was thoughtful enough to bring along a selfie-stick for his smartphone, to capture the moment he fled a “war zone” or acute “economic misery.”

This, however, is the real tragedy of the unfolding refugee crisis in Europe: apart from those fleeing combat zones, most migrants swarming European borders and coastlines do not appear to be in any real or dire need. Economic disparity on other continents should not oblige Europeans to open its own floodgates for mass migration.

This crisis seems to be one of Europe’s own making — that seems to be the logical conclusion of Europe’s debt-driven welfare system and the EU’s contempt for national boundaries.

Categories: Asylum seekers, European Union, Immigration, Multiculturalism
Tags: , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

Introducing Yasser Abbas – the son whom the Palestinian leader plans to succeed him

August 25, 2015

Introducing Yasser Abbas – the son whom the Palestinian leader plans to succeed him, DEBKAfile, August 25, 2015

Yasser_AbbasYasser Abbas is tagged to succeed his father as Palestinian leader

The reports swirling around the Arab world over the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas’s decision to quit disguise the octogenarian’s next plans. According to our Middle East sources, Abbas (known to all as Abu Mazen) has confided to his close circle that he has lost faith in President Barack Obama, whom he accuses of deserting the Palestinian cause, and in Secretary of State John Kerry, whom he has nicknamed “the tall liar.” He is now looking for new champions, possibly in Tehran, while at the same time shoring up his rule over the Palestinian Authority and designing his legacy.

Abbas joins the list of regional allies who feel abandoned by the Obama administration, like the Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz, Egyptian President Abdel-Fatteh El-Sisi and, up to a point, Israel’s Binyamin Netanyahu. For the immediate future, Abu Mazen is developing a comprehensive plan for replacing his enemies on the PLO’s Executive Committee with young faces, chosen for their ability to preserve the Abbas clan’s majority in this key institution and uphold his guiding principles for the Palestinian movement.

Since the end of July, his henchmen, Saeb Erekat, Akram Haniya and Palestinian General Intelligence chief Mejad Freij have been working on this blueprint.

They are to complete their project by September, when Abbas plans to introduce his choice of new leaders to the Executive Committee. They will consist mainly of the sons of the founders of the PLO and his own Fatah party.

Some of their names are unknown outside the Palestinian Authority’s seat in Ramallah. DEBKAfile reports that prominent among them are Sabry Shayden – son of the PLO’s first chief of staff; Maher Ghanem –  son of Abu Maher Ghanem, the Fatah Party’s first organizer; and also Gen. Majid Freij, Ayman Makbul from Nablus and Fahmi Zar’ir from the Gaza Strip.

The most important new face will be that of Yasser Abbas – Mahmoud Abbas’ own son.

The new appointments will herald another change: the PLO Exective Committee is to be elevated as the supreme Palestinian ruling institution, with jurisdiction over the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian government.

Abu Mazen is shaping this reshuffle to guarantee that his immediate successor as PA Chairman – mostly probably Erekat, whom the West knows as the most public Palestinian negotiator – will give up his seat when the time comes to make way for Yasser Abbas.

In this way, Mahmoud Abbas hopes to keep control of the Palestinian movement in the hands of his dynasty. His son, aged 52, who was named in honor of the late Yasser Arafat, moved from Ramallah to Canada in 1997 and built a business career.

A civil engineering graduate from Washington State University, he owns a string of companies in Canada, the Gulf and the West Bank. Among them is Falco Tobacco, which holds the sole agency for the distribution of American cigarettes in the Palestinian territory.

There are many rumors about how he made his fortune, including corrupt practices in high Palestinian circles. Little is known about his politics. When interviewed on occasion, he prefers to dwell on how he made his money rather than expanding on public affairs that concern his people. His good connections in Washington will no doubt be useful for opening a new chapter with the US when he takes over.

No date has been set for an Abbas visit to Tehran. It will be interesting to see whom he picks for the party to accompany him if and when it takes place.

Categories: Abbas, Iran, Israel, Palestinians, Two state solution
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Traitor senators took money from Iran lobby, back Iran nukes

August 25, 2015

Traitor senators took money from Iran lobby, back Iran nukes, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, August 25, 2015

em

Senator Markey has announced his support for the Iran deal that will let the terrorist regime inspect its own Parchin nuclear weapons research site, conduct uranium enrichment, build advanced centrifuges, buy ballistic missiles, fund terrorism and have a near zero breakout time to a nuclear bomb.

There was no surprise there.

Markey had topped the list of candidates supported by the Iran Lobby. And the Iranian American Political Action Committee (IAPAC) had maxed out its contributions to his campaign.

After more fake suspense, Al Franken, another IAPAC backed politician who also benefited from Iran Lobby money, came out for the nuke sellout.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen, the Iran Lobby’s third Dem senator, didn’t bother playing coy like her colleagues. She came out for the deal a while back even though she only got half the IAPAC cash that Franken and Markey received.

As did Senator Gillibrand, who had benefited from IAPAC money back when she first ran for senator and whose position on the deal should have come as no surprise.

The Iran Lobby had even tried, and failed, to turn Arizona Republican Jeff Flake. Iran Lobby cash had made the White House count on him as the Republican who would flip, but Flake came out against the deal. The Iran Lobby invested a good deal of time and money into Schumer, but that effort also failed.

Still these donations were only the tip of the Iran Lobby iceberg.

Gillibrand had also picked up money from the Iran Lobby’s Hassan Nemazee. Namazee was Hillary’s national campaign finance director who had raised a fortune for both her and Kerry before pleading guilty to a fraud scheme encompassing hundreds of millions of dollars. Nemazee had been an IAPAC trustee and had helped set up the organization.

Bill Clinton had nominated Hassan Nemazee as the US ambassador to Argentina when he had only been a citizen for two years.  A spoilsport Senate didn’t allow Clinton to make a member of the Iran Lobby into a US ambassador, but Nemazee remained a steady presence on the Dem fundraising circuit.

Nemazee had donated to Gillibrand and had also kicked in money to help the Franken Recount Fund scour all the cemeteries for freshly dead votes, as well as to Barbara Boxer, who also came out for the Iran nuke deal. Boxer had also received money more directly from IAPAC.

In the House, the Democratic recipients of IAPAC money came out for the deal. Mike Honda, one of the biggest beneficiaries of the Iran Lobby backed the nuke sellout. As did Andre Carson, Gerry Connolly, Donna Edwards and Jackie Speier. The Iran Lobby was certainly getting its money’s worth.

But the Iran Lobby’s biggest wins weren’t Markey or Shaheen. The real victory had come long before when two of their biggest politicians, Joe Biden and John Kerry, had moved into prime positions in the administration. Not only IAPAC, but key Iran Lobby figures had been major donors to both men.

That list includes Housang Amirahmadi, the founder of the American Iranian Council, who had spoken of a campaign to “conquer Obama’s heart and mind” and had described himself as “the Iranian lobby in the United States.” It includes the Iranian Muslim Association of North America (IMAN) board members who had fundraised for Biden. And it includes the aforementioned Hassan Nemazee.

A member of Iran’s opposition had accused Biden’s campaigns of being “financed by Islamic charities of the Iranian regime based in California and by the Silicon Iran network.” Biden’s affinity for the terrorist regime in Tehran was so extreme that after 9/11 he had suggested, “Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran”.

Appeasement inflation has since raised that $200 million to at least $50 billion. But there are still no strings worth mentioning attached to the big check.

Questions about donations from the Iran Lobby had haunted Kerry’s campaign. Back then Kerry had been accused of supporting an agreement favorable to Iran. The parameters of that controversial proposal however were less generous than the one that Obama and Kerry are trying to sell now.

The hypothetical debates over the influence of the Iran Lobby have come to a very real conclusion.

Both of Obama’s secretaries of state were involved in Iran Lobby cash controversies, as was his vice president and his former secretary of defense. Obama was also the beneficiary of sizable donations from the Iran Lobby. Akbar Ghahary, the former co-founder of IAPAC, had donated and raised some $50,000 for Obama.

It’s an unprecedented track record that has received very little notice. While the so-called “Israel Lobby” is constantly scrutinized, the fact that key foreign policy positions under Obama are controlled by political figures with troubling ties to an enemy of this country has gone mostly unreported by the mainstream media.

This culture of silence allowed the Iran Lobby to get away with taking out a full-page ad in the New York Times before the Netanyahu speech asking, “Will Congress side with our President or a Foreign Leader?”

Iran’s stooges had taken a break from lobbying for ballistic missiles to play American patriots.

Obama and his allies, Iranian and domestic, have accused opponents of his dirty Iran deal of making “common cause” with that same terror regime and of treason. The ugly truth is that he and his political accomplices were the traitors all along.

Democrats in favor of a deal that will let a terrorist regime go nuclear have taken money from lobbies for that regime. They have broken their oath by taking bribes from a regime whose leaders chant, “Death to America”. Their pretense of examining the deal is nothing more than a hollow charade.

This deal has come down from Iran Lobby influenced politicians like Kerry and is being waved through by members of Congress who have taken money from the Iran Lobby. That is treason plain and simple.

Despite what we are told about its “moderate” leaders, Iran considers itself to be in a state of war with us. Iran and its agents have repeatedly carried out attacks against American soldiers, abducted and tortured to death American officials and have even engaged in attacks on American naval vessels.

Aiding an enemy state in developing nuclear weapons is the worst form of treason imaginable. Helping put weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists is the gravest of crimes.

The Democrats who have approved this deal are turning their party into a party of atom bomb spies.

Those politicians who have taken money from the Iran Lobby and are signing off on a deal that will let Iran go nuclear have engaged in the worst form of treason and committed the gravest of crimes. They must know that they will be held accountable. That when Iran detonates its first bomb, their names will be on it.

Categories: Biden, Clintons, Democrats, Foreign policy, Iran lobby, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Kerry, Netanyahu, Obama, Obama's affinity for Iran, Obama's America, Obama's legacy, P5+1, U.S. Congress, U.S. politics
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment