Obama allowed Hezbollah cocaine running into U.S. in quest for Iran nuke deal
Amazing Politico investigative report — We knew Obama was willing to sacrifice Israelis for the deal, now we know he was willing to sacrifice Americans too.
In 2014, cocaine was second only behind heroin in U.S. drug deaths.
A major player in the cocaine traffic into the U.S. was the Iranian-sponsored terrorist group Hezbollah. For year it has been known that Hezbollah has infiltrated criminal gangs in South America and set up its own billion-dollar international criminal enterprise to finance its terror activities. None of this was a secret.
U.S. law enforcement came up with an aggressive plan to take down the Hezbollah international network and its key individuals. But it never happened. We now know why.
Politico Magazine has an amazing expose on how the Obama White House derailed the plans to take down the Hezbollah network, and to allow Hezbollah to continue drug-running into the U.S., in order to avoid upsetting the Iran nuclear deal.
The Politico article is so long, so detailed, and so powerful, it’s impossible for me to give a brief summary, so read the whole thing, The secret backstory of how Obama let Hezbollah off the hoo. The subheadline tells the story:
An ambitious U.S. task force targeting Hezbollah’s billion-dollar criminal enterprise ran headlong into the White House’s desire for a nuclear deal with Iran.
The opening paragraph of the Politico article is stunning in revealing the Obama administrations callous disregard for Americans afflicted by the cocaine epidemic, fed in part by Hezbollah:
In its determination to secure a nuclear deal with Iran, the Obama administration derailed an ambitious law enforcement campaign targeting drug trafficking by the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah, even as it was funneling cocaine into the United States, according to a POLITICO investigation.
There is so much detail in the article, you really do need to read it (but I repeat myself). Here’s a short intro segment on the U.S. law enforcement plans that were scuttled by Obama:
The campaign, dubbed Project Cassandra, was launched in 2008 after the Drug Enforcement Administration amassed evidence that Hezbollah had transformed itself from a Middle East-focused military and political organization into an international crime syndicate that some investigators believed was collecting $1 billion a year from drug and weapons trafficking, money laundering and other criminal activities.
Over the next eight years, agents working out of a top-secret DEA facility in Chantilly, Virginia, used wiretaps, undercover operations and informants to map Hezbollah’s illicit networks, with the help of 30 U.S. and foreign security agencies….
And with the help of some key cooperating witnesses, the agents traced the conspiracy, they believed, to the innermost circle of Hezbollah and its state sponsors in Iran….
But then law enforcement ran headlong into Obama’s obsessive desire to strike a nuclear deal with Iran. That deal would fulfill Obama’s goal, exhibited since the earliest days of his administration, to keep the Mullahs in power and to establish Iran with regional hegemony, as I documented in Obama sweeps history toward the Mullahs.
In order to fulfill that goal, Obama and his communications assistant Ben Rhodes, deliberately deceived the American public into believing the nuclear deal negotiations were the result of a moderating Iranian leadership. In order to perpetuate that falsehood, Rhodes created an echo chamber of think tanks and pundits, and deceived reporters.
David Gerstman detailed the Iran nuke deal fraud in Grand Deception: How Obama and Ben Rhodes Lied Us Into the Iran nuke deal.In this mad rush to an Iranian nuke deal, which Israel vehemently opposed as a ruse by the Iranians, the Obama White House also interfered with the law enforcement effort against Hezbollah.
But as Project Cassandra reached higher into the hierarchy of the conspiracy, Obama administration officials threw an increasingly insurmountable series of roadblocks in its way, according to interviews with dozens of participants who in many cases spoke for the first time about events shrouded in secrecy, and a review of government documents and court records. When Project Cassandra leaders sought approval for some significant investigations, prosecutions, arrests and financial sanctions, officials at the Justice and Treasury departments delayed, hindered or rejected their requests.
The Justice Department declined requests by Project Cassandra and other authorities to file criminal charges against major players such as Hezbollah’s high-profile envoy to Iran, a Lebanese bank that allegedly laundered billions in alleged drug profits, and a central player in a U.S.-based cell of the Iranian paramilitary Quds force. And the State Department rejected requests to lure high-value targets to countries where they could be arrested.
These were no rogue players, it was top-down interference:
“This was a policy decision, it was a systematic decision,” said David Asher, who helped establish and oversee Project Cassandra as a Defense Department illicit finance analyst. “They serially ripped apart this entire effort that was very well supported and resourced, and it was done from the top down.”
And the results are being felt to this day:
The derailment of Project Cassandra also has undermined U.S. efforts to determine how much cocaine from the various Hezbollah-affiliated networks is coming into the United States, especially from Venezuela, where dozens of top civilian and military officials have been under investigation for more than a decade. Recently, the Trump administration designated the country’s vice president, a close ally of Hezbollah and of Lebanese-Syrian descent, as a global narcotics kingpin.
Meanwhile, Hezbollah — in league with Iran — continues to undermine U.S. interests in Iraq, Syria and throughout wide swaths of Latin America and Africa, including providing weapons and training to anti-American Shiite militias. And Safieddine, the Ghost and other associates continue to play central roles in the trafficking of drugs and weapons, current and former U.S. officials believe.
How many Americans got hooked, overdosed, or died on Hezbollah cocaine so Obama could get his Iran nuke deal?
And it all was to appease and please the Iranians:
“During the negotiations, early on, they [the Iranians] said listen, we need you to lay off Hezbollah, to tamp down the pressure on them, and the Obama administration acquiesced to that request,” the former CIA officer told POLITICO. “It was a strategic decision to show good faith toward the Iranians in terms of reaching an agreement.”
The Obama team “really, really, really wanted the deal,” the former officer said.
We knew Obama and others were willing to sacrifice Israelis to obtain the Iran nuclear deal. Now we know they were willing to sacrifice Americans.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Obama was not only President, he was a member!
Ain’t that the Truth!
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. (U.S. Const. Art III, Sec. 3, cl.1)
This does seem to come pretty close to adherence to Iran, because it’s hard to see any other motive; but I think it doesn’t quite get there, because they had no reason to adhere to Iran. Nobody in the administration, certainly not 0bama, has any affinity to the mullahs. 0bama’s not a Moslem, but if he were he would surely be a Sunni, and thus he would hate the mullahs as heretics, and would not adhere to them. No, 0bamas policy was to build up Iran, but his motive for that policy was not love for Iran but hatred for America. He didn’t so much want to build Iran up as to tear America down. Iran just happened to be the most handy tool for that purpose. It could just as easily have been anyone. And unfortunately that makes what he did not treason, because treason requres either taking up arms or adherence, and he did neither. I don’t think it ever occurred to the framers that such a thing could happen.
Iran is an islamic theocracy. The ex US president knew that. Imo he is islamic.
There is no-one on earth who has the right to create a scenario which proliferates nuclear weaponry, which is what happened with the Iran deal. That deal was a day of infamy for the world,.
It is shameful.
If he were a Moslem, which he is not, he would certainly never support the mullahs, because he’d be Sunni and would regard them as Shi’ite heretics. There has never been any Shi’ite influence in his history, no opportunity for him to absorb Shi’ite doctrine. The idea of his being Shi’ite is just silly.
Yes, what he did is shameful. As I wrote above, I don’t think it ever occurred to the framers that someone would ever do something like this. They could only think of two reasons someone would give an enemy of the USA aid or comfort: either out of adherence to that enemy, or for some personal advantage that one hopes to gain by doing so. They decided that the first would be treason and the second would not. But that someone would do so not out of love for the enemy, nor for personal gain, but simply out of hatred for the USA, never occurred to them so they didn’t provide for it.
As to your first point, this is not accurate.
Though there is bitter rivalry between the Sunni and Shi’ite sects of Islam, they will ally against anyone that they view as a threat to the Islamic faith. The largely Sunni government of Iraq turned to the Shi’ite government of Iran against ISIS.
As to whether Obama is a Muslim, that we do not know. If his biography is accurate, he was a Muslim in his youth in Indonesia. Or, at least Barry Sowetoro was. How this influenced his thinking is unknown.
Personally, I think that there was more than a single reason for the Iranian Nuclear Deal. There seems to be a component of personal sympathy for fundamentalist Islamic peoples and states, as evidenced by Obama’s Arab Spring initiative as well as his abandonment of Iraq and his allowance of ISIS to grow in the Mideast. There also seems to be a component of near hatred for the United States. H was a Muslin in Indonesia during his formative years. His mother associated with US radicals in his youth. He was a “member” of a radical, anti-American Church. And, he always adopted a stance, in race relations, which was divisive. And, finally, he might have actually believed the Iranians.
Now, none of his actions appear to rise to the level of treason or even obstruction of justice. However, the sooner people wake up to the fact that Barack Obama was the most anti-American President since Woodrow Wilson, the better off they will be.
Mac, Sunnis and Shi’ites don’t consider each other to be fellow Moslems. As far as they’re concerned they don’t have a common faith. Sure, they may occasionally form temporary alliances to fight a common enemy, just as they may do with non-Moslems to fight each other. Even Sunnis will temporarily ally with non-Moslems against their fellow Sunnis, if it suits them. But if 0bama were a Moslem he could never support the mullahs; any cooperation between them could only be temporary, based on current expediency and mutual contempt. Which is, of course, what the mullahs feel for him, regardless of how he feels about them.
What is your point?
Sunnis and Shi’ites ally against others constantly. You just admitted it yourself. In other words, they support each other against infidels. So, why would Obama NOT support the Iranian mullahs against the infidel West, including the United States of America, the “Great Satan”?
The most telling thing about Obama was his treatment of Sunni nations. He routinely treated Sunni nations, many of whom were allies of the US, the poorest of all the Muslim nations. He supported the radical anti-Western Sunni Muslim Brotherhood and the Shia states the best. Why? Obama, by your definition, acted like a Shia, rather than a Sunni. This may have been due to his seeming hatred of the West in general and America in particular. But, his actions harmed the Sunni world far more than they did the Shia world.
Mac, my point is the difference between a temporary convergence of interests on one hand, and support on the other.
I’m recalling that Valerie Jarrett came from an Iranian family, right? Possibly with close ties to some shady Muslim organization or another?
I’ve always felt she had a huge direct influence this mess. And yes, directly contrary to the best interests of America and its citizens.
No, she does not. Both of her parents were as American as any non-Indian can be.
None whatsoever. Nobody in her family has ever been any kind of Moslem. Stop peddling paranoid fantasies, that only make you look silly.
Well, she was born in Shiraz, Iran in 1956 and her family moved to London in 1962 then to Chicago in ’63. She’s probably spent more time in Iran than most of us, albeit as a child. Just like Barry spent a bit of his childhood in Indonesia with his Islamic step-father. Just sayin’….
Where she was born is irrelevant. Neither she nor her family have ever been Iranian, and there is not the slightest reason to suppose that she harbors any loyalty whatsoever to the mullahs, let alone to any “shady Moslem organization”. Disco Stu’s scurrilous suggestion has no merit whatsoever.
Hence the question marks. My recollections of Obamaworld corruption may have gone a bit out of focus in the long years since. Looked up Valerie Jarret’s history again – at the gracious suggestion of Milhouse – and that reminded me she was born in Iran and spent early years there but both parents were indeed Americans. Perhaps during the Shah’s reign so not likely (then) directly influenced by the mullah insanity. If simply caring for the good people of Iran and not necessarily sympathizing with their theocratic leadership, that’s way more benign and I apologize. (For that implication, at least.)
Now I believe I must have conflated her with Huma Abedin (merged into an evil female singularity). Yes, born in America, but spent formative years, Islam-wise, in Saudi Arabia. And whose family indeed was directly involved with sketchy Moslem organizations.
A long-time Ms. Hillary enabler and enforcer, both skating on the wrong side of U.S. national security laws. Plus, even juicier, the dear Mrs. Anthony Weiner.
What’s she got to do with it? She is not Iranian, not Moslem, let alone Shi’ite, and has no affinity whatsoever to the mullahs.
Shenis of Iranian descent, she lived there with her family.
Don’t you think it likely that she might feel affinity for Iran, both as the land of her birth and more importantly, as the enemy of her enemy (viz., us)? And that Preznit Zero would have gladly followed her lead in this, as in so much else?
herm2416, you are a f***ing liar. She is not of Iranian descent, and you have no right to claim she is.
Old Patzer, there is simply no basis for your wild speculation. She’d have no reason to feel any affinity for Iran just because she happened to be born there. That makes no sense. People don’t work like that. Even Blackstone’s fantasies would have her feel some “natural loyalty” to the House of Pahlavi, and therefore be an enemy of the mullahs. But of course that’s nonsense too.
As for “enemy of her enemy”, why would 0bama need her for that? He’s the one who was raised by communists to hate America, not her.
More words: Huma Abedin, John Brennan, the list could go on.
What have either of those got to do with Iran? Abedin is Sunni, and while Brennan loves the Moors, he shows no signs of himself being a Moslem, let alone a Shi’ite.
One of Obama’s core belief’s was “fairness.” Remember when he told Joe the Plumber “we need to spread the wealth around.” And in a debate 2008, he said that even if lowering capital gains rates INCREASED revenue it was not a good idea because of “fairness.” So I would agree that, yes, Obama actively sought to bring down the USA to the level of other nations out of a perverse obsession with “fairness.”
Yes, exactly. 0bama thinks the world’s problems are caused by the USA being able to get its way, so he set out to create rivals.
No adherence to Iran, but certainly aid and comfort. (Which can be given without giving allegiance on the principle that the enemy – Iran – of my enemy – the United States – is my friend.)
Giving an enemy aid and comfort is not treason, unless it’s done out of adherence. The treason is in the adherence, not in the overt acts that it motivates. The overt acts are merely necessary for a conviction.
Indeed, but low likelihood it’ll be employed…..anyone remember Mena? Decades of overlooked criminality provides good security for the parasites.
Sedition (see Eric Holder treats today) and treason. Leavenworth is in order.
Minorities hardest hit.
Yes, Obama really took good care of his ‘black’ brethren, didn’t he? AND, to make it even darker, they still hold him up as an example of African-American success. Most will never disown the shuffle and jive scammer, even when he could so easily have considered them just cannon fodder for his goals. He belonged in South Africa, leading that blood thirsty nation – not here. But all the liberals had to ‘virtue signal’ their acceptance of Obama as POTUS and America paid the price.
Is it any wonder both he and his wife were always smiling when they went on their multi-million dollar vacations financed off the public dime?.
The only surprising thing about this is that a liberal rag like Politico actually reported on it.
Obama and his administration showed on multiple occasions they were willing to wipe their asses with the rule of law and the Constitution when it was politically expedient for him to do so.
There is strong circumstantial evidence that the proceeded with the laughable gun ‘sting’ of delivering weapons to Mexican drug dealers because they wanted American weapons to be used to kill American citizens and they could try and ram gun control through. Only because of a whistleblower was the whole thing exposed.
The ‘Dear Colleague’ letter was nothing more than public cover for universities to engage in complete witch hunts under the cover of government ‘accountability’.
And of course lets not forget his completely unconstitutional Dream Act bullshit.
Again, the only surprising thing about this crap is that Politico reported it. Which probably means an independent outlet was in the process of verifying everything so they ran as friendly a take on the story as they could to break it.
re: “The only surprising thing about this is that a liberal rag like Politico actually reported on it.”
Yes, wonderful isn’t it?!
The reason I use the word ‘wonderful’ is that it’s becoming apparent to the most dense knucklehead that the MSM is dead or dying. President Trumps #FakeNews rants have ripped that veil off for everyone to stop and consider opportunities.
Someone will have to replace MSM news, why not the news reporting sites on the Internet, and this shows that sites like Politico are putting on their game face!
I appreciate quality news, whatever the source. Others are stepping up to bat also, hopefully replacing CNN, WaPo and the NYTimes.
I predict minimal to no coverage anywhere else. The MSM may touch on it, but will only do any coverage IF this grows beyond Politico’s expose. They don’t cover Obama’s failures, his treasonous acts – just Trump Trump Trump 24/7.
This story needs to gain traction. Politico is too small an outlet, with little distribution outside the DC swamp….. Is it on Drudge? Is it on ANY broadcast except Fox News? That will show if it has legs, or if the MSM is all in to KILL it.
If not…..it will be killed and buried, I believe, or simply left to die on the vine.
There is no doubt in my mind that Obama constantly fought to favor Islamic interests against the national interests of the United States at every opportunity. Treason indeed!
Well, Iranian interests anyway. But he did it not out of love for Iran but out of hatred for the USA. Therefore it’s not treason.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in Levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Giving “aid and comfort” to an enemy is the definition of “adherence”. If you give “aid and comfort” (as Obama arguably may have done), then you’re “adhering,” that is, you’re siding with an enemy of the United States (whether you do any actual damage or not). For someone who owes allegiance to the United States, that is treason.
(I think this a better interpretation of the clause than my earlier comment.)
No, it is not. This is not my opinion, it’s settled law. Adherence means emotionally supporting the enemy and his cause, wanting him to win. Giving him aid and comfort for any other reason (e.g. to gain political benefit), even if you know it will help him win, is not treason.
But mere emotional adherence isn’t enough for a conviction, because you need two witnesses to an overt act motivated by that adherence, something that tangibly expresses it, i.e. something intended to help him win.
The article is discussing our foreign policy in regards to Iran from 2009 until 2016 and Hillary Clinton is not mentioned at all.
Lock them up.
“Well, Iranian interests anyway. But he did it not out of love for Iran but out of hatred for the USA. Therefore it’s not treason.”
Surely a distinction without difference?
The constitution says it makes all the difference in the world. It defines treason as only taking two forms: taking up arms against the united states, or adhering to their enemies. 0bama has done neither of these. Hating the US isn’t treason, though I think it would have been if the framers had thought of it.
Maybe she was never able to figure out how to make money off Iran.
I think the term “treason” can be found somewhere in here.
Let’s start the engines.
If he was an anti-American, crypto-Islamist Manchurian candidate what would Obama do differently?
“…now we know he was willing to sacrifice Americans too.”
More than willing to sacrifice Americans, Obama has been eagerly sacrificing Western Civilization and especially America herself.
I hope Trump can stay in office for eight years because it will take that long to uncover all the treasonous things obama did to our nation. He and Holder are two of the lowest forms of life and then there is Rhodes who admitted he lied to the press daily and made up stories about what happened in many situations like Benghazi. We have no idea what else this team of traitors did while in office.
Hmmmm. While I have no trouble at all believing tales of any depths of depravity plumbed by Obama and his buddies … if Politico announced that Monday would follow Tuesday this week, I’d be skeptical.
D’oh! Tuesday follow Monday.
My brother was one of those who lost his life to the Obama / Hezbollah cocaine deal.
There was no conflict of interest for Obama. Shielding the Hezbollah drug operation, and and promoting the Mullahs’ efforts in building a bomb and developing a means to deliver it to us, went and-in-hand.
When the final consequences of the treason of Soetoro &Co. have come to pass,
the top echelon of his admministration,incl himself,Holder,
and the top of is Intelligence people will be shot. Or, in the alternative, may God have mercy on us, they will run the successor of the USA, nameD Baryyland.
No wonder the top of the Dems went out of their mind when the Hildabeast lost. No wonder, theY frantically try to unseat Trump.
One of these days, I’m expecting Obama to flee the country and seek asylum in Iran. Wouldn’t that just tie everything together with a bow?
Whoa.I think it is time to ask Obama some questions.
Lock them up. There must be some charge that could be brought over this; obstruction of justice, perhaps?
Sounds like there’s more here than a simple comment requesting that DOJ “go easy” on Iran.
Man, if this ain’t treason it comes razor thin close to it! I’m not surprised he went this far in trying to screw us over but I’m still no less shocked by it! Like Frankiefrank said uncovering stuff like this is probably one of the biggest reasons Dems and the left went in full meltdown over Trump winning: they knew (at least their upper ranks anyway)! I don’t know if we’ll see very many of the decision makers serve jail time for this but this exposure could cripple their influence in the future which is nearly as bad for them.
This is interesting news, but, rational observers could already discern from his naive and foolish promoting of the idiotic and destabilizing “Arab Spring” conceit, his flippant and arrogant dismissals of the rise of ISIS, his petulant and infantile hostility towards Israel and Netanyahu, his ceaseless, enthusiastic and morally bankrupt embrace of Islamo-revisionism, Islamo-romanticization/whitewashing and Islamo-victimology and his Iran and Cuba “deals,” that St. Obama the Infallible’s inept and destructive foreign policy postures were grounded in self-congratulatory vanity, naivete, arrogance and deceit.
How many Americans got hooked, overdosed, or died on Hezbollah cocaine so Obama could get his Iran nuke deal?
And how many Americans died in operations funded by Hezbollah’s drug money?
Since North Korea is building nuclear weapons with Iranian money and support, the total count isn’t going to be available yet.
And, remember that the Left went ballistic over the allegations that the CIA had had a hand in inundating American inner-cities and predominantly black communities with cocaine sold by its “contra” allies, during the 80’s.
Now, we learn that Obama, who ceaselessly presented himself as the stalwart defender of black communities against alleged racism amongst police forces and in American society at-large, had no problem facilitating the spread and use of narcotics, as long as his pet vanity project, the farcical Iran “deal,” wasn’t derailed. This goes hand-in-hand with what we already know about the shenanigans behind this “deal,” such as how the Obama Administration/DOJ released seven Iranian prisoners, allegedly as part of a “gesture” to help facilitate the deal (which deal was a fait accompli from the beginning, due to Obama’s telegraphed and transparent narcissism and desire to have his alleged, grand “Nixon in China” moment), who were later revealed to constitute serious national security threats.
I wonder what the vile and sanctimonious Eric Holder has to say about his buddy Obama’s facilitation of cocaine importation into black communities?
Congress should start an immediate investigation into OBozo and his administration for this Collusion ,, and if proven he should be tried and sentenced to prison. Hope this article wakes up some people to how destructive his presidency was !!!
Let’s look at this a bit further from the perspective that his loyalty and sympathy was was in line with Iran, Hezbollah and Islamic terrorists. By squashing this Operation, he funnels a lot of money back to them.
This is low even for you professor. You’re no different than the Reagan,CIA,Oliver North sold drugs to fund the Contras crowd.
That was a paranoid fantasy with no foundation whatsoever in the real world. This is cold sober fact. How can you compare them?
What does the professor have to do with any of this?
The ignorant commie m1 checks in to spread more lies.
Hey commie m1, even though it’s a lie, how does that cover for the fact that your hero, comrade Obama, facilitated the sales of illegal drugs in the USA?
Where the hell are all the professional commies when you need one? We need a better grade around here. Y’all are just easy.
Mr. Obowlmovement did many things opposed to the best interest of America and Americans,yet he and his fellow travelers will be held blameless.
Someday in the future there will come a clash of cultures,that will determine the future path for America.
“The constitution says it makes all the difference in the world. It defines treason as only taking two forms: taking up arms against the united states, or adhering to their enemies.”
Definition of adhering? Could it not be reasonably argued that adhering could be applied by circumstantial evidence? After all a covert agent would not make a public statement of allegiance, nor would a devious sympathizer, but if their actions were no different than someone who did could you not make a judgement of guiltm
Adherence can indeed be deduced indirectly from a person’s words and actions. But it must be honestly deduced. To convict him a jury must conclude beyond reasonable doubt that he did indeed act out of adherence to the enemy rather than for any other reason, and the jurors are under oath to judge the case honestly, no matter how much they might hate the defendant.
You’re making the same mistake Milhouse made – confusing “adherence” with “allegiance.” The definition of “adhering” is right there in the Constitution – adherence is “giving aid and comfort.” The Constitution says nothing about the necessity of a proclamation of allegiance in order to prove “adherence.” Actions speak louder than words. (In fact, it might be argued that a mere declaration of allegiance isn’t sufficient to sustain a charge of treason – there must be some kind of action that demonstrates the allegiance.)
Dave, this is settled law. Your interpretation is incorrect. “Giving aid and comfort” is not the definition of adherence, it’s a description of the overt act motivated by the adherence that must be seen by two witnesses in order to convict.
As far as I know, the last time the Supreme Court spoke on this was in Hans Haupt’s case. Haupt was convicted of several acts he had committed to help his son Herbert, a German soldier on a sabotage mission in Chicago. The trial judge had told the jury that to convict Haupt they must not only find that he had committed overt acts intended to help the German war effort, but also that his motive was support for Germany, rather than family loyalty to his son. The Supreme Court repeated and agreed with this instruction, and found that the jury had indeed been given enough evidence to support such a finding.
It must be mentioned that Ben Rhodes’ brother is president of CBS News…..friendly territory.
I seem to remember the IT specialist DSW employed was in the used car business. I wonder if there is a connection?
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that the individual known around here as Ragspierre is conspicuously absent when the subject is the treasonous duplicity of Soetoro?
WHAT’S THE MATTER, RAGS, CAT GOT YOUR TONGUE?