The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Rule 5 Sunday: The Man Who Saved Britain

Posted on | September 14, 2014 | 16 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Diana Rigg as Tracy Bond

While Stacy is busy cataloging the many derangements and insanities of feminism through the years, it seems only appropriate to turn the spotlight this week on the literary icon feminists love to hate, James Bond. As chronicled in Simon Winder’s The Man Who Saved Britain, Bond was a reaction to the loss of Empire and the drastically narrowed horizons of postwar Britain; his glamorous life of derring-do and hot dames was a sorely-needed antidote to the misery and rationing of not-so-Merrie Olde England. Of course, Ian Fleming’s hero became even more (in)famous in America thanks to Alfred “Cubby” Broccoli’s film adaptations, initially starring Sean Connery, which further stoked interest in the books lauded by John F. Kennedy. Our interest, of course, is in the Bond Girls, the women who were never just arm candy in the films and usually came with a name guaranteed to make the feminists gnash their teeth, e.g. Pussy Galore.

Unlike Bond movies, not all of the following links are PG-13, so readers should exercise discretion as to where and when they click.

Ninety Miles from Tyranny leads off this week with Hot Pick of the Late Night, Morning Mistress thonging, and Girls with Guns; Goodstuff’s focus this week is on Angelina Jolie and her torpedo-like ta-tas. Animal Magnetism chips in with Rule 5 Friday and the Saturday Gingermageddon; Blackmailers Don’t Shoot has a Rule 5 Linkfest with Taylor Swift. This week, First Street Journal turns its attention to the women of the Bundeswehr, as the German Army is called these days.

EBL’s contributions to Rule 5 this week include fighting feminism one piece of sushi at a time, Gamergate, Cora Pearl, Alyssa Milano, and NFL Week  Two.

A View from the Beach offers The Girls of Graceland, “Turn the Tide”, Catfight!, Miss Kate in Antarctica, If You Can’t Beat ‘Em, Eat Em!, “Wax on, Wax Off”, $#!* You Should Read, Go Redskins!, Dweeb Crushes Comical Feminist Complaint and Newest! Oldest! Biggest! (has cavegirl content).

At Soylent Siberia, it’s Morning Melons, Tis The Season, Monday Motivationer Mia, Tuesday Titillation Buttons & Bows, The 6000th Comment Award Goes To…, Humpday Hawtness Chain Lightning, A Point Of Order, Falconsword Fursday Femme Fatale, Fursday Overnighty Jelena, Corset Friday Fantasm, T-GIF Friday Channel Changer, Weekender Valentina, and Bath Night Tech Rehearsal.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Paula Patton, his vintage Babe is Karen Randle, and Sex In Advertising is covered this week by Victoria’s Secret. Also, not only the obligatory 49er cheerleader, but a bonus cheerleader as well! At Dustbury, it’s Nance Coolen and Sophie Ellis-Bextor.


Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Links for next week’s Rule 5 Sunday should be submitted to the Rule 5 Wombat mailbox no later than midnight on Saturday, September 20.


Bond 50: Celebrating 5 Decades of Bond

Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop

Category: Rule 5

Steyn Distills Obama To < 10 Characters

Posted on | September 14, 2014 | 45 Comments

by Smitty

Emphasis original:

The Obama Doctrine – “Don’t do stupid sh*t” – has been rendered in non-PG version as “Don’t do stupid stuff”. But it should be more pithily streamlined yet: Don’t do.

I guess one major value added by the Obama Administration is that we’ve more or less seen an operational test of what a Non-Interventionist/Isolationist/Unplugged foreign policy would look like. While I’m not offering the Full Neo-Con, here’s some truth: if you’re not doing warheads on foreheads, you’d better be offering some kind of leadership, at least. Offering neither is a recipe for the dirty diaper on display.

In defense of Obama, this is the paradox of our 1787 Constitution: it’s relatively silent on the matter. Chiefly because the Atlantic was the Mother of All Moats back then, and neither of the people living in Canada at the time were worrisome.

This might be a cogent criticism of the idea of a Convention of States. If it’s not delivering a framework to provide some kind of foreign policy guidance, some super-National Security Strategy against which candidates can be tested (assuming we ever repent of letting the media pass off no-talent rodeo clowns as competent) then why bother?

Category: Barack Obama

Feminism: The Final Solution?

Posted on | September 13, 2014 | 89 Comments

Sally Miller Gearhart is a feminist and a lesbian (but I repeat myself) who as a professor at San Francisco State University in the 1970s helped develop one of the first Women’s Studies programs in the nation. For quite some time, I’ve seen a quote from Professor Gearhart posted in various places around the Internet:

“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.”

This ne plus ultra expression of feminism’s genocidal hostility to men was sufficiently intriguing to me that I tracked down the source. Gearhart’s quote is from her essay, “The Future — If There Is One — Is Female,” which was included in the 1982 anthology Reweaving the Web of Life: Feminism and Nonviolence, edited by Pam McAllister.

Thanks to the generous support of readers — “Hit the Freaking Tip Jar!” — I obtained a copy of this book from Amazon. Here is an excerpt that provides the context of Gearhart’s infamous quote:

Enslaved by male-identification and years of practice within the system as we all still are to one degree or another, the assumption must be that the present system of monopoly capitalism and patriarchy must be replaced and that non-male-identified women must be the responsible ones. . . .
At least three further requirements supplement the strategies of environmentalists if we are to create and preserve a less violent world. I) Every culture must begin to affirm a female future. II) Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture. III) The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race. . . .
To return species responsibility to women means in very practical terms that erotic and reproductive initiative must be restored to women all over the globe. . . . Make the decision entirely that of the woman as to how she will be impregnated and how often, if indeed she chooses to be so at all, and whether by heterosexual intercourse, artificial insemination or a form of ovular merging. Restore to each woman the inalienable right to say what shall become of any fertilized egg and to control absolutely the number of children she wishes to emerge from her body. . . . Make nonexistent any male’s say-so in the process of reproduction. Create and protect alternative structures of economic and psychological support for independent women — women not attached to men — who are child-bearers and child-raisers. . . .
Women will bear the number of children they know can be sustained not just by their own social group but by the wide ecological system. They will not bear the children that some man wants only to perpetuate his name or the family possession of his property; they will not bear the children they presently convince themselves they must have because their only role is obedient wife and mother; women will not have the children men think are necessary to perpetuate the tribe or the religion or the specific culture. Instead they will bear the children that they want, that they can care for, and that they assess are needed by the specific group and the entire species. . . .
In every culture it must be women in charge of the changes: women-identified women, no women who are pawns of men, not women who out of their fear of losing their lives or those of their children, still hold to the securities of that dangerous patriarchal culture, but women utterly free of coercion, free of male influence and committed to the principle that the right of species regulation is their own, and not the prerogative of any man. I suggest that lesbians and other independent women are already moving in this direction. . . .
To secure a world of female values and female freedom we must, I believe, add one more element to the structure of the future: the ratio of men to women must be radically reduced so that men approximate only ten percent of the total population. . . .
We now come to a critical point: how is such a reduction in the male population to take place? One option is of course male infanticide. It differs very little from the female infanticide that has apparently been carried out even into the twentieth century by some cultures. Such an alternative is clearly distasteful and would not constitute creative social change. . . .
[I]f women are given the freedom of their bodies then they may well choose [experimental “ovular merging” technology that produces only female embryos] in great enough numbers to make a significant difference in the sex ratio of women to men. A 75% female to 25% male ratio could be achieved in one generation if one-half of a population reproduced heterosexually and one-half by ovular merging.
Such a prospect is attractive to women who feel that if they bear sons no amount of love and care and nonsexist training will save those sons from a culture where male violence is institutionalized and revered. These are women saying, “No more sons. We will not spend twenty years of our lives raising a potential rapist, a potential batterer, a potential Big Man.”

What more needs to be said? Well, first, let us notice Professor Gearhart’s contrast between “male-identified” women and “woman-identified” women.  These phrases recall the title of the 1970 Radicalesbians manifesto, “The Woman Identified Woman.” That is to say, “male-identified” women — “pawns of men,” as Professor Gearhart describes them — are simply heterosexual women, and “women-identified women” are lesbians. Professor Gearhart could assume that a feminist readership in 1982 would understand the meaning of the phrase. The book in which her essay appears also includes selections by such famed lesbian feminists as Barbara Deming and Karla Jay.

As for Professor Gearhart’s enthusiasm for “ovular merging,” her knowledge of science is about what you’d expect for a Women’s Studies professor. Such methods are still merely experiments with lab mice and, although there are methods of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) by which sex-selection is possible, the vast majority of human beings are still conceived the old-fashioned heterosexual way.

Her fantasy of achieving a 90% female population through advanced reproductive technology is therefore still a fantasy, more than 30 years after she wrote “The Future — If There Is One — Is Female.” By the way, Professor Gearhart never had children, while “patriarchal culture” has produced more than 2.5 billion children since 1982.

Oops.




 

 

Category: Feminism, Sex Trouble

FMJRA 2.0: Not Now John

Posted on | September 13, 2014 | 3 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Is Rachel @Maddow’s Haircut Waging War Against Heteronormative Patriarchy?

Rule 5 Sunday: Are You Ready For Some Football?

Question For An Office Holder

The Varsity Rape Team

Obama Is All: “Ha Ha, Hollande! I Got A 35% Approval Floor, And I’m Not Even Named After A Foreign Country”

FMJRA 2.0: It’s The Heat

Lesbian Student Describes How She Was ‘Violated Physically and Emotionally’

Nate Silver: Almost 2-to-1 Chance Republicans Win Senate Majority

Boosting The Signal: Pray For Mandy Nagy

LIVE AT FIVE: 09.08.14

The Rocky Horror Parenting Show

Krugman, Did You Just Argue Against People Exercising Basic Liberty?

LIVE AT FIVE: 09.09.14

Well, Sink My Car & Call Me ‘Ted’

In The Photo Finish, Huxley Beats Orwell By A Joint

LIVE AT FIVE: 09.10.14

Violence, Foreign and Domestic

Feminist Theory, Human Nature and the Punch Seen ‘Round the World

GamerGate And Why It Matters To Conservatives

LIVE AT FIVE: 09.11.14

Last Call For Alcohol And Other Fun Times

LIVE AT FIVE: 09.12.14

Top linkers this week:

  1. Batshit Crazy News (18)
  2. Regular Right Guy (12)
  3. A View from the Beach (5)

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery, especially the Council of Watchers, who voted “Is Rachel @Maddow’s Haircut Waging War Against Heteronormative Patriarchy?” one of the top posts on the Intertubes this week. Deadline to submit links for next week’s FMJRA is noon on Saturday, September 20.


Shop Amazon – Take 25% Off Backpacks, Duffel Bags and More

Category: FMJRA Award

LIVE AT FIVE: 09.12.14

Posted on | September 12, 2014 | 8 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


TOP NEWS
Russia Weighs New Response As EU, US Add Sanctions

Germany’s foreign minister Frank-Walter Stenmaier arrives for an informal meeting of the EU foreign affairs ministers

Russia may ban clothing, used car imports
EU seeks compromise with Russia over Ukraine free-trade pact

As Scotland Goes, So Goes UK?
Could Scotland’s departure from UK trigger Britain’s departure from EU?

Hamas Acknowledges Use Of Civilians As Human Shields
But it’s Israel that gets accused of war crimes



POLITICS
Lawmakers Dubious About Obama’s Plans For ISIS

ISIS forces in Iraq

Cruz, McCain and Rubio skeptical that Somalia, Yemen tactics will work in Iraq, since they aren’t working there either

Nation Pauses To Remember 9/11 Anniversary

Administration Push To Arm Syrian Rebels Throws Monkey Wrench Into Continuing Resolution

FEMA Trying To Claw Back $5.8 Million In Hurricane Sandy Aid

Federal Judge Strikes Down Ohio Campaign Statements Law

Obama Declares Napa Earthquake Major Disaster, Frees Up Aid

Administration Sharply Cutting Deportations



THE ECONOMY, STUPID
Asian Crue Mixed After IEA Demand Downgrade: WTI $93.10, Brent $97.95
HP Fined $108 Million For Foreign Bribery
California Threatens To Shut Down Uber’s New Carpooling Service
US Jobless Claims Jump
Fortunes Sour For Regional Airlines As Majors Prosper
Radio Shack On The Brink Of Bankruptcy
Samsung Mocks Apple’s iPhone 6, New Watch In New Ads
HP Gulps Cloud Upstart Eucalyptus, Says Helion Is All-In For OpenStack
Android Apps Now Running On Chrome OS
Sprint CEO Cutting Costs To Bring Back Customers
“Destiny” Celebrates Record-Breaking $500 Million Franchise Launch



SPORTS
Stanton Beaned In Loss To Brewers

Stanton falls after being hit in the face with a pitch

Facial damage, dental damage and stitches after being hit under his left eye

Tim Tebow Joins “Good Morning America”

Female Ravens Fans Stand By Ray Rice

Pirates Top Phillies, 4-1

Red Sox Capitalize On Royals Errors, Win 6-3

Tribe Sweeps DH Against Twins Behind Kluber, House

Sale Outduels Kazmir, White Sox Beat A’s 1-0

Angels Top Rangers 7-3

Reds Edge Cards 1-0

Bumbling Mets Bruised In 6-2 Loss To Nats; Washington’s Magic Number Now 9



FAMOUS FOR BEING FAMOUS
Netflix Nabs “Gilmore Girls”

Series originally ran on WB, CW networks from 2000-2007

All seven seasons in exclusive streaming pact


Josh Hutcherson Addresses Jennifer Lawrence Nude Photo Scandal



“Married…With Children” Spinoff In The Works

Kanye West Hospitalized For Migraine In Australia

Brawl Erupts During Chris Brown Nightclub Performance

George Clooney To Appear In “Downton Abbey” Charity Film

“RuPaul’s Drag Race” Winner Tyra Sanchez – Security Beat Me Up, But I Got Arrested For Assault

Judge Rules Oscar Pistorius Didn’t Intentionally Kill His Girlfriend



FOREIGNERS
Islamic State Can’t Be Beaten Without Boots On The Ground
Fiji Hails Release Of Peacekeepers Kidnapped BY Jihadis
Australia Raises Terror Level On Syria, Iraq
Kashmir Flood Survivors Say Administration, Cops Missing In Action
CIA Estimates Islamic State Has As Many As 31,500 Fighters
Scotland’s Biggest Companies Reveal “Yes” Exodus Plans
Blockaded Gaza Faces Huge Rebuilding Challenge
Arab Allies Pledge To Fight Islamic State
France’s Hollande Visits Iraq
Salmond Accused Of Laughing Off Scottish National Debt
Seoul Reminds Citizens Of Nork Flag Ban



BLOGS & STUFF
Michelle Malkin: Never Forget – Unlike Obama, The Jihadis Never Rest
Twitchy: George W. Bush Still Carries Shield Of 9/11 Hero George Howard
American Power: College Students Don’t Remember 9/11, Don’t Know Much About ISIS
American Thinker: Global Warming And The Feynman Test
BLACKFIVE: Iran May Wind Up The Winner In Iraq
Conservatives4Palin: Gov. Palin Endorses Clint Didier In WA-4
Don Surber: Weather Refutes Global Warming
Jammie Wearing Fools: White House Solemnly Remembers 9/11 With Pictures Of…Obama
Joe For America: Wannabee Teen Jihadist Pleads Guilty To Terrorism Charges In Denver Court
Protein Wisdom: Wait…Wait…Did We Miss An Actual Fundraiser This Month?
Shot In The Dark: Liberal Tolerance In Action
The Gateway Pundit: Turkey Refuses Obama Request To Use Its Airbases For Strikes Against ISIS
The Jawa Report: 9/11 Conspiracies – Fact Or Fiction?
The Lonely Conservative: Obamacare News – Deductible Shock, And Thousands More Lose Their Plans
This Ain’t Hell: The Plan For The Third Deployment To Iraq
Weasel Zippers: Mexico Condemns Rick Perry For “Irresponsible” Deployment Of National Guard To Border
Megan McArdle: Scottish Independence Is A Matter Of Identity


Smittypalooza this afternoon at 4!


Deadline to submit links for the FMJRA is tomorrow at noon.
DO IT.
Deadline to submit links for Rule 5 Sunday is tomorrow at midnight.
DO THAT TOO.


Shop Amazon – Back to School

Category: Live at Five

Last Call For Alcohol And Other Fun Times

Posted on | September 11, 2014 | 7 Comments

— by Wombat-socho


Okay, as far as I can tell by various e-mails and comments aimed in my direction over the last couple of weeks, I’m expecting about a dozen folks to show up at Jimmy’s Old Town Tavern in Herndon tomorrow; festivities will start around 4 PM, concomitant with Happy Hour, though I plan on being early as usual, showing up at 3 to stake out tables. Directions are here, the menu is here, and I’ll be monitoring Twitter and e-mail until enough people arrive for me to be uncomfortable being SanFranSocial. Fallback plan in case the DJ gets to be too obnoxious is the Amphora Diner Deluxe, an outstanding Greek diner a few blocks down Elden Street.


Hope to see y’all there.


Category: smittypalooza

Feminist Theory, Human Nature and the Punch Seen ‘Round the World

Posted on | September 11, 2014 | 44 Comments

It’s all so calculated.
She’s got a calculator.
She’s my soft touch typewriter
And I’m the great dictator.
Two little Hitlers
Will fight it out until
One little Hitler
Does the other one’s will.
— Elvis Costello, 1979

Watching the video in which Ray Rice knocked out his fiancée (now wife) Janay, the thought occurs: What was she so angry about?

Everybody has focused on the obvious horror of Rice’s punch — the brute force of a 200-pound professional athlete used against a woman — and nobody seems interested in what Janay did immediately before the punch. The couple were in a confined space, inside an elevator, when Janay “got in his face,” screaming and lunging toward Rice. Of course, Janay’s behavior does not justify Rice hitting her, but one wonders why she acted that way, just as one wonders whether the circumstance of being trapped in an elevator with this enraged woman in some way explains Rice’s reaction. That is to say, if her angry rage triggered Rice’s fight-or-flight instinct, he couldn’t flee from her while they were on the elevator, and his adrenalin surge produced an autonomic reflex: BOOM.

That’s one possible reading of the scene, at least, but I’m sure that any attempt to explain what Ray Rice did will be condemned as an attempt to defend or justify what Ray Rice did, so that political correctness erects a wall obstructing access to a knowledge of the motives involved.

There is exactly one acceptable interpretation, a feminist interpretation that construes Ray Rice as an agent of male supremacy and Janay Rice as a victim of oppression. This interpretation prohibits any effort to view Ray Rice and Janay Rice as individuals responsible for their own behavior. Having spent the past few months up to my eyeballs in radical feminist theory, including lesbian psychologist Dee Graham’s claim that female heterosexuality is a PTSD-type response to male “sexual terror,” I am aware that every woman who has ever taken a Women’s Studies class in college views the Ray Rice incident through a prism of theory. There are no individuals in feminist theory; everything is a social construction and everything must be interpreted in a context of male supremacy and female oppression:

The prosecutor offered Rice the ability to participate in New Jersey’s pretrial intervention program (PTI). Supposedly this decision was reached “after careful consideration of the information contained in Mr. Rice’s application in light of all of the facts gathered during the investigation.” What facts? What information? Is it the same sort of information that has anchored a culture that seemingly normalizes and accepts domestic violence? Is it more of “domestic violence is a private matter?” — which is very nineteenth century. Tell us what sort of facts, and while you are at, how might you clarify whether or not the NFL was given the tape. Because right now, it is hard not to see this case as yet another moment where the power structure goes to every length to protect and serve patriarchy.
In a nation where 24 people experience intimate partner violence every minute, most of them women, Ray Rice is a mere microcosm of a larger systemic injustice.

See? From the feminist perspective, this isn’t about one man hitting one woman. This is about a “culture.” This is about “the power structure” of “patriarchy.” Individual responsibility disappears and the conversation is about “a larger systemic injustice.”

The world is full of “systemic injustice,” if you want to look at it that way, and almost everyone can somehow claim victimhood.

Does anybody remember O.J. Simpson? I just re-read Tammy Bruce’s account (in The New Thought Police) of her experiences as president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW) during the O.J. murder trial. Bruce organized protest marches and rallies focused on Simpson as a perpetrator of domestic violence against his slain wife Nicole. Astonishingly, NOW’s national leaders denounced Tammy Bruce by name, falsely accusing her of making “public statements that clearly violate NOW’s commitment to stopping racism.”

Nicole Brown Simpson could not be reached for comment.

Readers may be curious as to what “public statements” by Tammy Bruce led to this false accusation of racism. Here you go:

“What we need to teach our children,” Ms. Bruce said on ABC’s “Nightline” the day after the verdicts, is “not about racism,” but “about violence against women.” She added that her domestic violence message provided “a needed break from all that talk of racism.”

Exactly right. As everyone can now see, looking back with 20/20 hindsight, (a) O.J. was guilty as hell, and (b) O.J.’s defense attorneys cleverly manipulated the case to make it appear that O.J. was an innocent victim of white racism, with the result that (c) O.J. was acquitted and (d) public opinion was unnecessarily inflamed by what Tammy Bruce characterized as “all that talk about racism.”

What we can also see with hindsight was that Patricia Ireland was fearfully envious of Tammy Bruce’s success. Ireland was the perfect stereotype of feminist leaders as rigid humorless ideologues (and/or mindless stooges for the Democrat Party), while Tammy Bruce was the feisty young host of a popular radio talk show.

Furthermore, while Ireland and national NOW leaders were throwing Nicole Simpson’s body under the bus of a cynical “alliance” with the NAACP and other black liberal groups, Tammy Bruce had the wisdom to see what was really happening in the O.J. case and the courage to call it what it actually was: A cruel perversion of “civil rights” that treated the murderer as a victim, and treated O.J.’s two victims (including Ron Goldman) as if they had no rights whatsoever.

Tammy Bruce was getting booked on Nightline, not Patricia Ireland. Tammy Bruce told the truth, and Patricia Ireland lied.

Darkness and lies always hate the light and truth.

What does this have to do with Ray Rice? Everything.

Collective Victimhood and Conspiracy Theories

Feminists were willing to defend the murderer O.J. Simpson because their “allies” (e.g., Jesse Jackson) insisted that the case was about racism: All white people (as a collective group) oppressing all black people (as a collective group). Viewed through the prism of collectivist thinking, what mattered about O.J. was not whether, as an individual, he had murdered his wife, as an individual. All that mattered was that O.J. was a member of an Official Victim Group whose support the Democrat Party needed. Nothing so proved the sold-out phoniness of national feminist leadership as their refusal to condemn O.J. Simpson as a perpetrator of domestic violence, after recordings of 911 calls and photos of Nicole’s battered face exposed the truth of the ex-football hero as a wife-beater. The reality of Democrat Party coalition politics required feminists to ignore this truth — and to denounce Tammy Bruce as “racist” because she had the courage to tell the truth.

Fast-forward two decades: The elevator surveillance camera images make it impossible to deny that Ray Rice punched Janay and, because both of them are black, it is also impossible to claim that Ray Rice is a victim of racist oppression. His guilt is clear, and there is no white cop like Mark Fuhrman to serve as the racist scapegoat in a conspiracy theory about how Ray Rice was framed.

Because progressives view humans in collective groups, the problems of Ray Rice and his wife Janay are not personal, but political. The fact that Janay’s husband has lost his lucrative employment, and that an African-American family has thus suffered economic harm — an outcome that seemingly contradicts progressive “social justice” goals — is ignored because, as the feminists say, these two people are “a mere microcosm of a larger systemic injustice.” Whereas the O.J. Simpson trial was viewed through the prism of race-based “injustice,” the case of Ray Rice is viewed through the feminist prism. Read more

Category: Feminism, Sex Trouble

Question For An Office Holder

Posted on | September 11, 2014 | 25 Comments

Spake Bobo:

I think a president should always be saluted when they go against their natural inclinations. His inclination is not to use military force. It’s certainly not to insert American power and American bombs into another Arab country and that’s what we’re going to be doing. But I thought they laid out a four-point strategy that was reasonably clear and it’s pretty ambitious. I guess the question I would ask is he said our goal’s clear — to destroy ISIS. What happens if air strikes don’t do it? What happens if the Iraqi army can’t do it? What if the Free Syrian army can’t take some ground in Syria? If that stuff doesn’t happen and our goal is clear to destroy ISIS, what’s the next step? But I think so far you have to salute him for a pretty clear, pretty straightforward strategy.

By the time the ink dries in the history books, Brooks, looks like Obama shall have destroyed precious little else other than the American health care system.

Category: Barack Obama
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin