Drone Strikes – Is Rand Paul a Constitutional Hero?
Articles,  Blog

Drone Strikes – Is Rand Paul a Constitutional Hero?


now some democrats are outreach today
that i’m sporting reimpose filibuster of john brennan to be the head of the
c_i_a_ uh… because he had to be a hundred percent right
that we have a giant constitutional issue that uh… eric holder of said we can do drawn strikes on u_s_ citizens on u_s_
soil without a trial if you are an actual progressive or a
liberal you would find that agents and clearly obviously unconstitutional as some of you have if u well i don’t care about principles and
you’re not actually a progressive or liberal you just uh… democrat and you like
being a team democrat you like wearing the blue outfits and with the big olin hope in changi
like you can see slogans well then you would be opposed iran paul
because you’re not a principled person you’re just go along with inside asia have some pompoms ’cause your job is really a cheerleader what does my dear leader robots eight april u_s_ electron also i don’t buy them to be awesome i fight
it’d be despicable i’ll go as far as say i’m really glad
that ran paul who i disagree with ninety percent of the time has one that seat in kentucky now the
democrat had one that see do you think it will lead a filibuster against
president bombers unconstitutional actions you know they have said that and as much as i disagree a grand paul ons so many different issues what he’s doing here is monumentally
important without further ado let’s hear from
rental the fact the deal bomb administration has told
the u_s_ senator that there is a circumstance where the government could
target and kill an american citizen on american soil without charge and
without trial is a stark example of an imperial
presidency if there were an counts of courage in
this body i would be joined by many other senators
saying that they will not tolerate this that we will come together today in
bipartisan fashion and tell the president tell any president that no president will ever have the
authority to kill americans without a trial damn straight he’s a hundred percent right about that
as we are live on there right now he’s missed half hour that this filibuster and how many senators have joined him seven others putting only one democrat ron white once again missing-in-action are all
those soap operas of democrats played bernie sanders was with warren et cetera so now rantoul explains whereas president i’ll bomb of all people but of
two thousand seven great point here i’m a republican i didn’t vote or
support the president by the time but i’ve marin vertically in two thousand seven many
men i admired his uh… ability to stand up
and say we want to work for people that’s not what america does how does
the president’s mind work the uh… the presidency and so on the wall seem so concerned with all rights seem
so concerned with the right not to have your phone with that now says he’s not concerned with whether
you can be killed without a trial where is the brocco bomb of two thousand
seven great question well that bravo obama no longer exists if it ever existed one possible theory is that he was lying
all long an entire by the wire tapping in fact we know that he gave a pass to the big
telecom companies during the primaries e_s_l_ ur clinton
he’s an old filibuster doughnut and then after the primaries are over no
i don’t get away with it of course he led the bush administration
there were all there was like any of that president obama does what was
wiretapping himself right now cid ministration revels in it the indefinite detention is willing to
sign and the national defense authorization act which allows for the indefinite
detention of u_s_ citizens by the military let alone on u_s_ citizens and now he is out cheney cheney and he says i get back security
residences on u_s_ soil due process be damned what happened all
bomb of two thousand seven what c l_ lion or did he somehow change i doubt we’ll get an answer from the
president on that in either doesn’t seem very open although of course he is running the
most transparent administration in history laugh along with me one more break or from rempel now when the president says he doesn’t
intend to do so you really have to think that the route
he wants us to remember in thing could have him because he says i don’t intend
to do so well it’s not enough i mean would you tolerate a republican
who stood up and said well i’d like the first amendment on
um… quite fond of the first amendment and i don’t intend to break the first
amendment but i might what conservatives tolerate someone is that i like the
second amendment i think it’s important and i’m poor guy
membership and i don’t intend about the second amendment but i might when we tolerate but he doesn’t intend to do so as a
standard i’ve been fighting online all day on
this issue and so democrats china go well you have a
single case a bit president expiry u_s_ citizen on u_s_
soil yet he just has the authority to do so apparently you fundamentally miss
understand our process an art form of government you know just give the president the
right to do that and then hope he doesn’t use it well why don’t we just
have a king instead and get them all those words in fact the magna carta was designed to make
sure it became didn’t have love specific rights we’re going back now in history past the magna carta this is one of foundations of western
democracy and nobody administration is apparently
gleefully tearing it down and any progressive or
liberal that supports them doesn’t understand what it means to be a
progressive or liberal at all so this is something i should be crossed
partisan libertarians lybrand paul conservatives
who care about the constitution and liberals we should all agree on this
buses bush did it l baba dead out fortunately mostly country agrees uh… the
constitution bidet has already team leaders told otis it was ok i’d love that ran
paul says it is not ok

100 Comments

  • David Lakatos

    Our Government planed suppression of Americans. Ever since Obama Came into office. First Obama now can have any American killed without due process. He is now Judge and Jury. Femma camp's stocked. Massive ammo being bought by Government and police. Drones flying over America. Even Patriots are on the watch list of being terrorist. Taking away your Gun's. Our Government has gone rouge. And the smell coming out of the White House is Anti American These people are becoming dictators.

  • aSingleDallasGuy

    You are nuts! republicans do all the spending huh? Say WHAT? Obama can't even agree to cut $0.10 from anything in govt! Anything! In fact his plan, raise taxes higher and higher. Yeah lets just tax our way to prosperity! SS hasn't had a dime in it for 20+ years! Obama spent atrillion on a stimulus that net'd zero jobs! Then spent billions on stupid green energy ideas that then went bankrupt! You are delusional! Keep sticking your head in the sand. reality is a biotch eh?

  • Lambs Bread

    Since the Obama administration seems so keen to entrench its authority to kill Americans deemed “terrorists” on foreign soil, why has it failed to drone strike former US Army soldier Eric Harroun, who is now fighting with the Al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist group Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria?

  • Lambs Bread

    The question is rhetorical because the answer is already known. Harroun will not be targeted because he is fighting on the same side as the terrorist-led FSA insurgents which the Obama administration has backed to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

  • Chad Edwards

    Youre absolutely right. However Social Security is payed for. it doesnt drive the debt. You actually made my point for me. The government under the idea led by republicans have been gutting social security and spending it on their endless wars, corporate tax cuts, and oil subsidies. And if you cant tell by now, the republican party is the ones wanting to cut social security even more, driving more and more of your, and my money into war and oil.

  • aSingleDallasGuy

    Well, that is somewhat debatable. it may be paid for in that there are more workers paying into it than currently being paid out. But the money collected for SS is not diverted to some bank account… i.e. lock box that is untouchable by grubby politicians. Nope, SS geoes into the general accounting fund that is robbed by politicians and has $0 in it considering were are operating at a deficit. The notion that's its republicans gutting this fund and not democrats is a joke. Are you serious?

  • Chris Wafi

    a.) I'm not sure what the first two things have to do with the conversation.

    b.) He has said numerous times he doesn't support a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage, and would only endorse it as a last resort. So I suppose we are both technically right.

    c.) I'm not a huge Rand Paul fan; I just like facts.

  • El Scorcho

    I'm a libertarian, but more importantly I'm a human being who's sick of seeing these drone attacks killing other human beings, and I absolutely applaud you making this video knowing full-well that you're going to piss off a lot of your viewing audience.

  • modelmajorpita

    a) They are about the first point nameless said: Rand Paul views the rights of a single cell as more important than the rights of women, and tried to put his religious beliefs into law by sneaking them into an unrelated bill

    b) but he did endorse a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage already, so that's just him backpeddling.

    c) then why aren't you telling the truth?

  • modelmajorpita

    Actually, social security money does not go into the general fund, it goes into a separate fund that politicians weren't supposed to touch but did anyway.

    And the SS fund is not empty – unless you consider a promise by the U.S. government to not have value, in which case I hope you are converting your useless dollars into gold.

    Since the deficit is 90% due to Bush's policies, it's pretty fair to blame the Republicans.

  • aSingleDallasGuy

    Well if we have 17 trillion in debt and Obama every year has a deficit of at least 1 trillion whatever money is anywhere in govt is not real. It's committed someway or fashion. 90% due to Bush? So Obama is not responsible for his own presidency huh? Darn Bush! LOL You left-wing kooks crack me up! If the economy was booming you'd be saying how great Obama is for fixing it. But it clearly is a disaster, so it's Bush's fault 5 years later? Obama failed! Admitting it is step 1 to recovery.

  • modelmajorpita

    90% is based off the CBO's analysis that placed a third of the deficit due to the economy (which tanked thanks to Bush) a third due to Bush policies Obama ended but we still owe money on, 20% due to Bush policies Obama continued, and 10% due to policies Obama started.

    The economy is booming. Corporate profits are up, CEO pay and the stock market are at all time highs, the wealthy have completely recovered.

    That is thanks to Obama.

  • aykcroid

    Wrong. Americans engaged in terrorisms are traitors. Penalty for treason can be death. This stands as long as war against terror lasts. Rand Paul is guilty of giving confort and aid to the enemy.

  • aSingleDallasGuy

    You are a moron! Plain and simple. To say 5 YEARS later your fallen hero Obama is blameless for his left-wing agenda including a wasteful trillion dollar stimular that net'd zero jobs is a joke! The worst president in US history Hugo Obama has a bad economy in 2013 because of everything he did from 2009 to today. the idea that raising taxes is going to cause business's to hire people even though they have a higher tax bill is nuts! Millions of people are not working today because of Obama.

  • aSingleDallasGuy

    "The stimulus did create jobs." BS! Then why is there 3 million peple less working today than in 2008? While our poulation is much bigger? You can't put lipstick on this pig, it's still a pig! The rate is only lower because your govt doesn't count people unemployed over 6 months. ummm whil handing then 99 weeks of unemployment. Yeah that will surely get them back to work right? Let me guess they will find a job at 99 weeks plus 1 day. Nice!

  • modelmajorpita

    My mistake, how silly of me to try and argue facts with a crazy person and a liar.

    Let me try your tactic and make shit up:

    The stimulus created fifty billionity jobs!

    You might have missed my actual point, which is that Obama has only been helping the wealthy and not caring about the middle class or the poor. I am hardly defending him, I am just stating facts: Obama saved the economy for the wealthy and the stimulus created jobs.

  • aSingleDallasGuy

    You don't understand that liberally twisted "facts" have nothing to do with actual facts. I mentioned that the burea of labor stats shows that the total workfoce in the USA is down some 3 million since 2008 while the population itself is much larger. To say Obama created jobs is a lie. He net'd zero jobs and in fact lost millions of jobs. If those looking for a job were all counted the unemployment rate would be 12%. Wow, what a great president! No liberal math please, I do the real kind. LOL

  • Whitney Pyant

    Aww cute Rand Paul first flop flip. Rand Paul said that he supported drones for border protection and now he against them. Hypocrite alert

  • Nomovies

    No no no no.

    You are using circular logic to reach that conclusion.

    The fact is the government or any law enforcement branch can use lethal force to stop a crime without trial, jury, and all the rest so long as they are reasonably sure that a crime is being committed.

    The rest of this is posturing by libertarian fools to feed anti obama propaganda.

  • Chad Edwards

    Again you make another point for me. If there are more people paying into SS than are being payed out, then there is no reason to say social security "is running a deficit". How much do we spend in afghanistan? Over 620 billion dollars. Wars initiated by republicans ( and to be fair) continued under democrats. Are gutting our social security to do so. And that doesnt even count giving tax breaks to corporations, through medicare, and SS "reform".

  • aSingleDallasGuy

    Again you show your ignorance. A ponzi scheme to survive requires this as weel to have more paying in than they pay out. That doesn't make it a good idea now does it? Second of all the avg person who receives SS will eventually receive 3X the amount than they ever paid into it. We are living far longer than in 1932. Why does govt need to be our nannies to make sure we are saving for retirement? Any idiot could get 7-10X the amount they paid into SS if they invested themselves over 50 years!

  • starcatcher222 אריאל

    It is a violation of the right of due process to kill a person who does not pose an imminent and direct threat and it took the AG 13 hours to decide if non-combatants could be eliminated on US Soil, that is extremely disturbing.

  • Nomovies

    Exactly, the problem is that in the letter sent to Rand Paul it was clearly stated that a case could be "imagined" where this use of power would be justified. In order for you to assume that it would be against that person due process of law- you must imagine that the person was in a situation which the drone strike could NOT be justified… which is itself the circular logic. The terminology "non-combatant" wasn't at issue.

  • Nomovies

    If Rand Paul was concerned over the terminology "non-combatants", and not political posturing he could have quietly sent a letter asking for clarification– for instance "When you say a case is imaginable where the use of drone strikes would occur on our soil, are you referencing a possibility of use against non-combatants… or only against direct and imminent threats?"– and all would be solved.

    However Rand Paul does NOT care about the actual issue… only about his political image.

  • starcatcher222 אריאל

    It was at issue because it was part of the terminology of the question and it took 13 hours to answer. You're not a very principled person simply an Odumbo cheerleader.

  • ШΛЯPΛТH

    Oobama and his zombies are more studied in playing the race card. There's no skill involved of reading other peoples writings from a teleprompter with cheerleaders ready any sec to play the race card.

  • Nomovies

    Evidently you didn't see my other comment… which you should go read. Right now.

    I disagree with your assessment of me… I think it takes great principal to look at an argument and decide its veracity based on if it is logically sound. Something ignorant wankers will never understand apparently…………………

  • starcatcher222 אריאל

    Your logic is flawed because you're too interested in your dear leader to see that his words never match his actions. DHS has just ordered 450 million rounds of hollow point ammo and the President has signed indefinate detention into law which eviscerates the 5th Amendment in light of those facts the failure to answer the drone question immediately is especially ominous. You have no Liberal Principles Leftist Principles perhaps but you're certainly no Liberal.

  • Nomovies

    We aren't talking about indefinite detention, bringing that up is what we call a "Red Herring".

    So if his words never match his actions- having Rand Paul do a filibuster in order to get the Presidents word that he wouldn't use drones on non-combatants STILL doesn't make any sense… and STILL serves the purpose only of political posturing on the part of Rand Paul. So my assessment is STILL accurate.

    Its only ominous if you are too foolish to see through political propaganda on either side.

  • Nomovies

    Haha now I gettcha! I think "propaganda" still has that really gut-wrenchingly bad connotation haha but maybe mind control is the new term to use! 🙂

  • starcatcher222 אריאל

    The loss of essential Freedoms recognized by the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States to the over reaching Federal Govt. is very ominous and if Bush was the culprit you might pull your head out of Obamas ass long enough to recognize that.

  • Nomovies

    Kid. You've been duped by the propaganda and political posturing of a politician named Rand Paul.

    You just don't have the skill set in logic to even see it.

  • Kenneth Surgent

    I disagree with Cenk 90% of the time! At least he can see this for what it truly is and maybe now he may wakeup to other realities!

  • Chad Edwards

    Okay youre contradicting yourself and showing a basic ignorance of how social security is supposed to work. Its not a ponzi scheme. The reason more people pay into social security than get paid out is because our population is always growing. Younger people still paying into social security usually dont get it until retirement. Im not saying its perfect. All im saying is that its unacceptable for republicans or democrats to gut social security as its not meant for discretionary spending.

  • aSingleDallasGuy

    I may be wrong calling it a Ponzi scheme since it is far worse actually. Ponzi schemes do not force people to be part of it, like social security does. So in fact you could be jailed by your govt if you refuse to participate. Also, if a private organization in which you invested could alter the terms at will like govt can with SS they would be hunted down by the very same govt.The ratio between workers and retirees is far lower today and in decline. In 1935 it wa 9-1, today 3-1. DOOM! Get it?

  • starcatcher222 אריאל

    "Kid"? I was watching leftists like yourself defend aggressive Soviet Policies before you were a twinkle in your Daddys eye. Now you're defending tyranny right in America.

  • starcatcher222 אריאל

    I've studied more logic than you'll ever learn, your first reply to me was based upon an assumption. The 5th Amendment has been violated by this administration and I didn't need Rand Paul to tell me you sychophantic Obot.

  • Katapult5721

    They are crimes during both war and peace time. The question is whether they are enemy combatants. If they are than they don't deserve a trail and they would be the war criminals. The issue is that most seem to agree that they are not.

  • Yaala Lozangel

    Are you upset with how this country is being run and want your voice to be heard? Here's an idea: Starting April 1, 2013 Do nothing. Sit at home and chill. Don't work, drive, eat out or spend money at all! Stock up on a month's worth of supplies, like food, medications – and do nothing. If more than half the United States does this all at the same time, can you imagine the sort of response that would be triggered? Search "Operation Inaction" here on YouTube and pass it on!

  • eggdescrambler

    And who decides the difference which case it is: between non-combatants and "imminent threats". If you end up with a Nixon like President who would gladly use this against any "imminent threats" to his political power (like a journalist). You are just going down a dangerous path. If you peel off those foundations slowly one by one, you could get to something similar to Nazi Germany one day. Germany didn't turn into full blow death camp nazi Germany in one day.

  • C Vanover

    I am curious how you can completely support Rand on this issue based on constitutionality but be opposed to 90% of his other stances – all of which are based on the restraints placed upon the government by the constitution? I am glad you do support this stance though.

  • Nomovies

    So what did Rand Paul accomplish? All that came out of this is that the terms were clarified…

    The President still CAN kill an american citizen in hypothetical circumstances… but now instead of being "vague"… the executive branch has instead given CLEAR hypothetical circumstances.

    … So again… if Rand Paul only clarified the terms, and didn't change a damn thing legally, it would seem to me that this filibuster was more for his image than for an issue.

  • Nomovies

    I am positive that you have.

    That said… no, I wasn't making an assumption… in order to get from point A to point B you have to use circular logic, which, given that you know more about it than me. You should know.

    Like I said, your using "red herrings" to prove your point, and that makes you wrong. Those are the rules of logic.

    As you know.

  • Doug

    Cenk.. Libertarian, I like your show even though I disagree a lot with you. You make points sometimes and I feel like you actually do add to the dialogue.

  • resptsr

    I'm not going to argue that Reagan was a great President (every President since has made him seem better and better); but he was a popular president all the same. With many comparing Obama to Carter; could history be repeating itself with Rand Paul in 2016? Team Democrat and Team Republican are leaving "We the People" behind. Isn't it time to unite behind someone with Libertarian ideals, regardless of the (R) or the (D)? Thanks to TYKs; for speaking what is right.

  • n64p3

    I'm glad that you are willing to say that the democrats are wrong in this, there are a lot of people on both sides who aren't as morally strong

  • Bobius10000

    Out of interest, and this is a question not a troll attempt, I assume the reason drones can be used in Iraq and Afghanistan on people without trial is that they are war zones, but are the people who are targeted in say Pakistan given a trial without them being informed? Like an independent tribunal or something? Thanks for any info 🙂

  • Jondlechit Glyphix

    Rand is NOT his Dad. Ron Paul is a Constitutional warrior. Rand is a party-line Neo Con, riding on his Daddies' risks. The RNC neutralized Ron Paul to make way for either Newt or Mitt. BOTH Neo Cons. The Tea Party is NOT what it was before 2009 and the hyperbole and money. Rand is packaged and marketed as his father's son. However, the RNC simply shut Ron Paul down for being "too extreme". Lots of Neo Con investors could lose out. So enter Rand. He gets his morning memos; good minion.

  • Frank Burns

    I kind of like Cenk, even though I vehemently disagree with him about 90% of the time (make that 92.5% since Cenk just said 90% about Rand Paul just as I was typing that). He does have a unique style, and seems to at least be trying to be objective, even if his indoctrination in PC dogma clearly runs deep.

  • gim10003

    Hey genius, Obama's administration NEVER said they could use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil. Never once. What they concluded (correctly) was that US citizens engaged in combat against the US could be killed while in combat. That is not a controversial point in the law. If I pick up arms and start attacking US targets, I can be killed (by drones or otherwise), despite being a US citizen. If I am not engaged in combat, they have to arrest/charge me.

  • Zeyu Zhang

    I don't necessarily agree with Rand Paul's "new" position on drones to target armed robberies. However, I think Cenk is really missing the point here. Rand never said that he would never use drones on America soil, he just said we shouldn't target specifically "non-combatants" on American soil. Technically, he didn't really change his position. I think even Cenk pointed out that lethal force can be use in cases of "imminent threat" which is what Rand Paul was talking about. Please comment.

  • Martin Sjöstedt

    He said in another video that he voted for some third party guy, because Obama would win his state anyway.

  • Kim Jong-FUN

    Just the right to kill people is all a leader needs. if it's done secretively… over time total control can be achieved.

  • Neosaigo

    I agree with Rand Paul's talking point, but I still seriously doubt his actual policies.

    As most political observers should know, talking points vs. actual policy vs. actual governing are very different.

    Time will tell when he actually propose a bill so we can see what he meant. It is easy to complain about obvious problems, but the true character is shown when actually propose own ideas as bills.

  • Neosaigo

    Not with drones, the drones are quiet, but its missile isn't.

    If going to be doing it secretly, a leader doesn't need the right to do so. You are contradicting yourself without realizing it.

  • Atlas Wakes

    I never thought id see Cenk agree with a Republican. Its about damn time. He's not brainwashed like the rest of the idiots on his show.

  • AssertiveEmpath

    I JUST WANT TO SCREAM!!… OBAMA HAS BEEN DIAGNOSED AS HAVING "STEALTH NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER" BY ONE OF THE TOP EXPERTS IN THE WORLD… Narcissists present a false self to the world and are the very definition of MASTER MANIPULATORS…. HE IS EVIL!.. THAT IS A FACT…If you dont think so.. then study "Cluster B" Personality Disorders..
    I'm an expert as well.. and it is clear as day!..
    People if you don't have an understanding of Narcissism and empathic people and the eternal relationship they have… then the world will never make sense to you… these are indisputable facts.

  • Austin Garrett

    As a libertarian, it really makes happy to see someone from the main political parties with a sense of conscious that is able to go against what their party tells them. Although there are a few issues I disagree on with TYT, they are principled. I respect you guys greatly!

  • JL HU

    When he took on Obama's past stance in 2007 and he compared it to his current stance, it was level a genuality that stood out so deeply in his character. Whether you agree or disagree with the Pauls, you have to honor their unparalleled principality contigous with their courage.

  • PerilVideo

    I disagree with Cenk on almost all political subjects, but today he has my respect. It is good to see common sense transcends political boundaries.

  • Robert Stewart

    I may be a tea party republican, but I love this show. I may disagree with a whole lot of wat you say, but you guys stand for principle. You don't just blindly follow our dear leader Obama, and let him get away with the lies he said. So I respect that 🙂

    TED CRUZ/MIKE LEE 2016!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • jtoad99

    We need to start a new party. A party where liberals and conservatives/libertarians of principle can join together to fight the statis in both parties. Remember both parties are trying to take away our rights. Vote Rand Paul 2016!

  • Golkarian

    Something that kept being swept under the rug during the filibuster (once it was brought up) was instances like 9/11 that might require shooting down an airliner. But this would be easily fixed with a clause about immediate threats with a clearly defined time scale.

  • AlexTheEpic

    There are cases where I agree with Senator Rand Paul. This is one of 'em. You can't just give someone the power to do a horrible thing and then hope that they don't do it. And you can't have the power to kill an American on American soil. At least not without due process. And y'know what? Unilateral drone strikes should be illegal completely. Because they allow the POTUS to kill anyone, anywhere, with no trial and sometimes, without even consulting the government of the country they're bombing.

    And can you trust any seat of power which can kill without offering any sort of explanation? Hell no! Doesn't matter if you're Democrat or GOP. Our administration needs accountability. Whoever succeeds Obama, be it Clinton or Paul or Bush or Walker, they need to realize this.

  • Mr. SPINKS!!

    I love the fact that liberals have to watch "right wing extremists" do the right thing as their leftist champions of freedom all bite their tongues and cower to authoritarianism. What do so-called liberals even stand for anymore?

  • gabehcuoD suoitneterP

    Democrats are one arm of the establishment. Republicans are the other arm. Money owns and keeps them in line.

    Rand upsets that natural status quo order from within the Washington machine.

    They will never let him become president.

  • skyblaze eterno

    for non US viewers a short explanation of what a filibuster is would seem helpful – any quick definition? – I'd prefer not to google it….

  • Double D Ton

    Clips like these give redeemable value to Cenk. Of course, it's overshadowed by so much of the nonsense he's otherwise spewed, but still, he's 100% right here.

  • UCFTyler

    Rand's economic views are insane, but honestly, I wouldn't mind him as president, he truly respects the constitution unlike so many dems and republicans, and he isn't a war hawk.

  • Casper Howell

    "Would you tolerate a republican who says they like the second amendment, but might violate it?"

    Wonder how Rand Paul feels about this now that he's Trump's running dog

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *