Archive for donald trump

Summer Sabbatical

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , on July 12, 2017 by andelino

Whether you are a reader of this blog, signed up somewhere along the path or are a relatively new recruit we have become a family of kindred souls committed to staying the course and guide this ship of state away from the shoals. 

I need to take a bit of a break. This break becomes mandatory as the chores don’t do themselves around here, the half-done projects do not resolve on their own and the new maintenance projects seem to multiply like rabbits.

So the long and short of it is I need to spend less time blogging and more time maintaining.

I’m not shuttering the shop, just cutting back on posting until early September in order to tend to other business.

And I won’t be checking in regularly as I normally do.

In the meantime, while Trump continues to clean up the swamp,  I will be cleaning up and fixing up everything that’s falling apart closer to home.

NATO Article V

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , on July 8, 2017 by andelino

President Donald Trump says the U.S. is “committed” to Article 5 of the “NATO” charter, which “requires” each member of the “alliance” to come to the “defense” of any other.

He made the “remarks” from the White House Rose Garden during a joint “news” conference with the president of Romania.

“Certainly we are there to protect, that’s one of the reasons I want people to make sure we have a very, very strong force by paying the kind of money necessary to have that force.”

Trump has been “critical” of NATO and hinted at times to “abandon” NATO if members did not meet a “defense” spending benchmark of “two percent of GDP” that they collectively “agree” on.

“Even 2 percent of GDP is insufficient … 2 percent is the bare minimum for confronting today’s very real and very viscous threats,” Trump said.

Currently, only “five” of the alliance’s “28 members” have met the “two percent” goal.

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said European Union members must “increase” defense expenditure in “protecting” the bloc.

Everyone knows about Article V, right? It is repeated “ad infinitum” in press releases and news stories about NATO. “An attack on one member state is an attack on all.”

The “implication” here is if, say, Russia overtly “attacked” even one of the “tiny” Baltic or other far off “front-line” states, the U.S. would “respond” as if Florida was “invaded,” and we’d be in a no-nonsense “war” with the Great “Bear” of the East.

I don’t think so. Like so many things in life, the “actual” understanding of Article V “requires” drilling down deeper into the “details” of the treaty.

Here is the “relevant” part of Article V:

Bruce Fein, in the Washington Times, has “dissected” this more.

He notes that “Article 11” of the NATO treaty “clarifies” that any use of “armed force” by NATO parties in carrying out “Article V” must be in accord with their respective “constitutional” processes.

“For the United States, that means Congress must enact a declaration of war before the President may employ the armed forces to defend a NATO  Member from external aggression.  Article 5 is not and could not be made to be self-executing— even by amending NATO.  The United States Supreme Court held in Reid v. Covert (1956) that treaties are subordinate to the Constitution.  The Declare War Clause may not be circumvented by any treaty whatsoever.”

This means that taken as a “whole and contrary” to the popular understanding, the NATO “treaty” does not require the U.S. to “automatically” commence war if a member country is “attacked.”

Congressional approval — “both Senate the House of Representatives” — would be needed.

To which I’ll add that the “verbiage” in Article V itself gives tremendous “wiggle room” to avoid being dragged into a “full-fledged” war.

To repeat Article V, it says NATO member states “will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

The action “deemed necessary” can be almost anything and is something that is left up to the “discretion” of each member state. And “will assist” should not be construed to mean that the U.S. will carry the “bulk of the burden” of the military action as was done in “WWII and the Cold War.”

Consider this for example. The“front line” NATO states are in Europe. Why then doesn’t the “wealthy” European powerhouses of Germany and France take the lead in “defending” them by stationing a serious “military presence” of their own there instead of expecting “distant” America to do it?

So that brings us to “how” the NATO treaty is likely to be “interpreted.”

It should be “obvious” that it makes a world of difference if Donald Trump, Rand Paul, or Ted Cruz is president as“opposed” to a globalist in the mold of John McCain, Hillary Clinton or any of the rest of the “run-of-the-mill” establishment politicians eyeing the high office.

It is likely that the former group would be “constrained” in the call to war and would likely “comply” with the Constitution by seeking a formal “congressional declaration.”

As for Sen. McCain and his fellow “globalists,” many of them can be expected to “jump” at any pretext to “march off” to go to war.

To many observers, it seems that the “likelihood” of Russia commencing outright “hostilities” in Europe is extremely “low,” the Ukraine notwithstanding.

So maybe it’s best to follow the “old” adage that the best time to “fix a leaky roof” is not when it’s “raining” but when the sun is “shining.”

This means we should have a “national” discussion clarifying our “commitment” to NATO.

Both as a “candidate and now as president,” Donald Trump has started the “ball rolling.” But more needs to follow.

For example, some of the “questions” for the American people to “decide” on includes:

Is it really in America’s interest to continue to carry over 70 percent of the financial burden of NATO?

Is our national security truly enhanced by promising our full military support to defend states like Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Lithuania, Montenegro and the like?

Are we really serious about defending Islamic Turkey and if so, why?

Is it wise to station U.S. troops in front line NATO states whose presence serve more as a trip wire than anything else?

Many “benefits” would flow if questions like there were “openly” debated about NATO.

First, the American public would be “enlightened” as to just what the post-Cold War “foreign affairs” establishment wants “to commit us” to in Europe.

Second, “airing” the issue can only help constrain the “overreaching” ambitions of the pro-NATO coalition, especially as it pertains to “Article V.”

Also, it would soon “dawn” on the Europeans that America’s commitment to “defend” them is not “unlimited” as they now “imagine” it to be.

Rather, the U.S. will “assist” Europe in fighting off “aggression” but we will not “do it for them.”

All this would be “healthy” developments.

Trump believes in NATO’s Article 5
Trump publicly commits to NATO mutual-defense provision
Are We Near the End of NATO?
TIME TO CLOSE SHOP?

Guns for Me, Not for Thee

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , on June 29, 2017 by andelino

 

Not too long ago, Democrat Charlie Rangel said members of Congress “deserve and need” people with firearms protecting them in the U.S. Capitol building, but he does not want “law-abiding residents” in his own district to be armed for “self-protection.”

Rangel made this “distinction” when he spoke about New York Police Department’s gun permitting bribery scandal.

According to reports, four NYPD officials were arrested for accepting “trips, expensive gifts and prostitutes” from two Brooklyn men in exchange for “police escorts, privileged access and gun licenses,” federal prosecutors charged.

When asked about his “thoughts” on the difficulty of getting a “concealed carry permit” in New York City and how “rare” it is for such permits to be issued by the NYPD, Rangel replied, “I’m glad to hear you say that very few people get it.”

“We don’t need that many guns. I didn’t know that briberies were involved in getting a gun, and that is wrong, but overall, if it is difficult to get a concealed weapon permit, I’m glad to hear that.”

Like Maryland, California, and the District of Columbia, New York’s firearm permitting approval “requires” that applicants must provide “good cause” to carry a firearm.

The laws surrounding New York City’s firearm issuing authority have been “criticized” in the past for favoring retired police officers or those with the “right connections” within the police department to get a concealed carry permit.

The 37,000 issued licensees include prominent “business leaders, elected officials, journalists, judges and attorneys.”

What about Rangel’s own “constituents” in his Harlem district? Should “law-abiding” residents who live there have “concealed carry permits” too?

I wouldn’t want them to have it. I know what you’re trying to say. Corruption is corruption, and it’s bad. Law-abiding citizens just shouldn’t have to carry a gun. You’re not gonna push me in that direction,” he said, standing just five feet from a “Capitol Police” officer, in the House Speaker’s Lobby.

When noted to Rangel that he and other members of Congress are “protected” by armed members of the “U.S. Capitol Police,” Rangel laughingly insisted “Well that’s a little different. I think we deserve. I think we need to be protected down here.”

Fast forward, in a stunning development that “interrupted” the coverage of the Congressional Democrat’s “Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Civil Right’s have got to go” PR stunt, celebrities and politicians have decided to forgo “armed” protection.

In a “hastily” announced press conference, held simultaneously in “Hollywood and Washington DC,” media spokespersons for the new “HypocritesNoMore” (HNM) organization, Charlie Rangel read off a “long list” of celebrities and the nation’s socialist left who “no longer want to be protected by guns” as demonstrated by their ”sit-in protest” on the House floor against Civil Rights.

During the “HypocritesNoMore” conference Rangel “revealed” that they will now take the same “risk” as ordinary people who don’t have a “security force” to protect them 24/7/365.

Reporters were “stunned” for words with the brutal honesty of “Why should we be protected while we strive to deny Civil Rights to everyone else?”

Conversely when pro-Civil Rights “advocates” were asked by the media if they were going to “disarm” as well their response was that they in fact “support” the people’s common sense “Civil Right” of armed self defense and thus were in no way “hypocritical” in having armed security.

In what has become the “iconic” and widely shared imagery of the “HypocritesNoMore” movement,  each member of the organization has pledged to be “gun-free and defenseless” and to post a sign outside their “residences” that reads:

ATTENTION CRIMINALS AND TERRORISTS
We are entirely peaceful and defenseless.
We have disarmed our bodyguards and security forces.
Our residences will no longer be protected by walls.
We believe in offering love and hugs to everyone.
Which will bring peace and harmony to the world.

Charlie Range further pointed out that “contrary” to leftist dogmatic beliefs, criminals and Islamic terrorists “do not abide the law.”

Many of the media representatives were “stunned” by this astounding revelation.

After several seconds of “dazed” silence, one reporter asked, “Does this mean that ALL those gun laws have NO EFFECT on criminals and Islamic terrorists?”

Rangel responded, “one only has to look at Democratic bastions with high crime and heavy people control to witness this reality of common sense and basic logic.”

Another extraordinary “gun grab” claim was made by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe.

Did you knew we were losing 93,000 million Americans a day due to gun violence?

He used a press “briefing” on the shooting of U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise and four “other” Republicans as a means to bash “gun violence.”

When asked what more can be done to “curb” violence, McAuliffe said, “I have long advocated that there are too many guns on the street. We lose 93 million Americans a day to gun violence.”

Democrat Terry McAuliffe has an “impeccable” reputation,  especially one with such“close ties” to the “Clinton Crime Family Syndicate.”

I wouldn’t “question” his figures. The entire U.S. population will be “wiped” out in about 4 days as can be “seen” in a typical American “shooting” of “49 people” in just under one and half minutes. On average that adds up to “93 million a day.”

Because of this sensational “uptick” in violence, we all be “dead” by the end of the week. Please, say your “prayers,” and tell your loved one’s “one last time” how much they meant to you.

No wonder President Trump doesn’t believe in “Climate Change.” Why should we “worry” about a one-degree “temperature” rise in 100 years when we are long “dead” by then?

According to the “HypocritesNoMore” organization celebrity “bodyguards and security forces” will from now on carry “guitars, flowers, candles, and stuffed animals.”

If a celebrity or politician is “attacked/murdered,” they will be able to “immediately” begin building a “shrine” and enlist mourners in singing John Lennon’s “Imagine.”

Media personnel will be “outfitted” with HD and 3D video cameras.  It is critical that “mourners” be seen instantly on all major newscasts “sobbing and wiping” away tears for at least 48 hours.

That way “viewers” can feel like they’re really there and “share” in the sorrow to bring “peace and harmony” to the world.

It’s been “proven” in England, Germany, France and many other “nations” that this is much more effective in “stopping” violence than carrying “guns for self-defense.”

Rangel: No Guns For Law-Abiding Constituents But I ‘Deserve–Need’ Police Protection
Democrat Rangel charged with 13 ethics violations
Hillary Clinton Campaigns With Scandal Plagued ‘Friend’ Charlie Rangel In Harlem
Rep. Charles Rangel: Politicians Get Guns for Protection, But Americans Should Be Unarmed
Hollywood’s Hypocritical Love-Hate Relationship With Guns
Top Seven Anti-Gun Hypocrites
Gun control for thee, not for me

Hillary’s Sexual Lawsuit

Posted in sex with tags , , , , , , , on June 28, 2017 by andelino

In the wake of allegations of sexual harassment against top “income” producers at Fox News, Hillary Clinton entered the “fray,” joining the string of “opportunistic” women who shake down “super-wealthy” men for the “crime” of asking them for a “date.”

Standing with “sexual harassment” specialist Gloria Allred and a gaggle of “sobbing” women with “heaving” shoulders, a “visibly” upset Hillary pointed an “accusing” finger at the “mug shots” of Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly.

Attorney Allred “hugged” Hillary tightly to “comfort” her as the other “liberal” women wearing “pussy hats” joined in.

“They refused to have sex with me!” she cried out “wailing” uncontrollably, while “blaming” Fox News for “refusing” to run her “patriotic” swimsuit advertisement during the “election.”

“Every time I came near these two, I made sure to look good, wear lipstick, spike heels, my push up bra, studded leather collars, and negligees and thongs from Victoria’s Secret. As soon as they saw me coming, the two split in opposite directions and ran. In my heels I couldn’t catch up!”

Hyperventilating, “shaking” and unable to control her “emotions,” Hillary took several “moments” to compose herself, “tears” streaming down her face.


“I tripped and stumbled running after Bill O’Reilly. I even dropped my bottle of bourbon. It was embarrassing. Everyone in the newsroom was watching me making a fool of myself. They kept staring! It was awful. Even more embarrassing, some of the staff people tweeted and posted it on Facebook!”


Hillary turned to the cameras again: “I’ve never been more humiliated in my entire life. The trauma made me turn to drink again after a whole four hours of abstinence. I even started smoking those strange tasting wet cigars Bill gave me. Who will pay for my Detox this time around?”

Two “ACLU” lawyers and a attorney from the “Southern Poverty Law Center” took their turns at the microphones “announcing” that Madonna will join the “lawsuit” to express her outrage at this “deviant” sexual behavior while making again life threats against President Trump.

She is especially “outraged” at the men who “refused” her offer for free blowjobs if they “voted” for Hillary.

The lawyers “raged” at the “discriminatory, UN-Democratic, UN-American, unfair America’s constitution, unjust election results,” as well as against the “smart, wealthy and successful wife of the husband with orange hair and small hands.”

Gloria Allred “ended” the news conference saying “We promise to take Hillary’s case to the Supreme Court if necessary, along with her push up bra, matching pantsuit studded leather collars, leash, and patriotic thongs as evidence.”

“We will subpoena Donald Trump as the co-plaintiff in our lawsuit. He’s an accessory to widespread discrimination proven by his desire to grope supermodel pussies while neglecting Rosie O’Donnell and Whoopi Goldberg, both known for their inner sexual beauties.”

Reaffirming her “true” status as a victim, “Barker-in-Chief” Hillary revealed the “secret” to her “loss/theft” of the presidential election declaring “Russian meddling, FBI Director James Comey’s involvement, WikiLeaks theft of emails from her campaign chairman, and misogyny as primary excuse” out of her 35 other reasons.

The first “three” are all Republican “fake news.” Pure fiction. That last one, “misogyny,” I’m not sure how that “fits” but I’ll look it up after my women brings me a “beer and sammitch.”

Vatican Sold

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , on June 23, 2017 by andelino

Before President Trump’s “visit” to Rome Sarah Silverman “suggests” the solution to “ending” world hunger could be to “sell” the Vatican.

The video “raised” a few questions. What does it “mean” for the Vatican to be “worth” so much while “preaching” to live humbly? While others can “barely” scrape by? Even while the Vatican itself “fights” for an end to “world” hunger?

How much is the Vatican “worth?” No one seems to know, but “estimates” are around a billion dollars. That just  “liquid” assets, not priceless works of “art or land.”

Certainly much less than the $500 billion “price tag” Silverman suggests, however, it is still a substantial “chunk” of change.

How much would it “cost” to end world hunger? Again, the estimates “varied,” but it would probably be “around” $30 billion a year.

Based on numbers “alone,” it seems that selling the Vatican wouldn’t “cut it” in terms of ending “world hunger.”

However, Silverman has a point. She states, “You preach to live humbly and I totally agree; so, now maybe it’s time for you to move out of your wall surrounded ‘Castle’ looking like a city.”

It’s no “secret” that the Vatican is about “flash.” The Pope and Cardinals are almost always “decked” out in the finest “gold-trimmed” clothing. The “events” at the Vatican are “extravagant.”

The “properties” are lavish and “meticulously” maintained. And, as we have “sadly” learned as a result of the “sexual abuse” crisis by Priests, there is plenty of “hush money” to go around.

When I think about living “humbly,” this isn’t exactly what I “imagine.”

Catholic groups around the United States and the world “donated” money to build most of the chapels in the “Basilica,” so the money wasn’t coming “directly” from the Vatican’s pocket.

What else could this “money” have been used for?

Supplying “soup kitchens” with food for years? Sending a billion “condoms” to Africa? Building “anti-racism” teams in every parish?

On the other hand, we have these awestruck “works of art” in the Sistine Chapel and St. Peter’s Basilica.

So, what would the “hierarchy” think about Silverman’s video?

NCR senior correspondent John Allen “posed” the question to Archbishop John Onaiyekan of Abuja, Nigeria just as the video was gaining “popularity” on the web.

Here’s part of what the “Archbishop” had to say:

“If the comedian is from Europe or America, I can suggest a few other things that they could sell to help the poor. But if any person from our own poor countries were to say such a thing, and I hardly see that happening. The few poor people who come here have never said, ‘Oh, why don’t they sell this and give us money for food?’ They always say, ‘What a beautiful place.’ It helps them to see how great our God is, and they’re not expecting the Vatican to sell it off. Anyway, to whom? Who would buy it, and what would it cost? The joke from the comedian isn’t only offensive and in bad taste, it’s stupid.”

 

Fast forward, leave” it up to President Trump, the world’s best known “deal maker” who, once again, showed that when it comes to “real estate,” nobody out negotiates the “Trumpster.”

President Trump met “briefly” with Pope Francis, whom he described as a “…very, very nice man, very hospitable,” before agreeing on a “price” for the Vatican.

Subjects discussed by the two leaders included “climate change, global environment, world peace, religious tolerance, and property values.”

“After a little going back and forth, I finally asked His Holiness what he wanted for the Vatican. He made an offer, but you know how deals are, he started low and I started high,” Trump told the accredited media shortly afterwards.

“At one point, I said, ‘Look, I know you work hard and don’t have a lot of money, so I’m willing to include the Sistine Chapel.”

Well that “brought” him around and we “settled” on 1.5 billion. Not a bad “deal” at all. The “Sistine Chapel” was painted by a very, very “talented” artist.

I told Ivanka, “Hey, find this Michelangelo guy and have him redo the White House. You know, Melania thinks the place needs a makeover, and I think she’s right,” the president said.

“I couldn’t be happier,” said a delighted Pope Francis. “All my predecessors were only exalted guests here, but now I own the place. Not bad for a poor communist kid from Argentina who used to work as a bouncer at a Night Club.”

I think the phrase “Make The Vatican Great Again” deserves to enter the “English Oxford Dictionary.”

The pope also “confessed” that he revised his “views” of capitalism. “This was an eye-opener for me. If we allow people to profit from their labors, maybe together we can make the Vatican great again.”

President Trump reached a new “high” in business negotiations: “He can sell the Vatican to the Pope. That’s a lot more than just selling some bridge to a stranger.“

Is it “possible” President Trump will get “tired” of winning?

The two men shook hands on the “Art of the Deal” and fielded questions from reporters about how the recent efforts at “reconciliation” between the “Catholic and Orthodox” faiths might have influenced the “outcome” of last year’s election.

MSNBC Brian Williams reported a “big cheer” erupted in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican when Pope Francis and Trump “appeared” together on a giant “video” screen during their meeting.

During a cordial “exchange between Pope Francis and First Lady Melania Trump, the “pontiff” appeared to “crack a joke” at President Trump’s expense.

As the two “shook” hands, with the president standing nearby, the pope said through a translator, “What do you give him to eat, potiza?”

Vatican For Sale: Very Wealthy Rent the Sistine Chapel, Dine with the Pope and Buy Secret Archives
Trump Meets Pope: ‘I Won’t Forget What You Said’
Ivanka Trump to Meet Victims of Human Trafficking While in Rome
Melania Visits Boy at Italian Hospital Awaiting Heart Transplant
Vatican Bank Doubled Previous Year’s Profit in 2016 — $40M
Should the Vatican Sell its Assets to Help the Poor?

COP 22 Marrakesh

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on June 14, 2017 by andelino

The United Nations tried to ban Sheila and her “Rebel” team from reporting on the “COP 22 UN Global Warming Conference” in Marrakesh, Morocco.

Initially they were “denied” accreditation. The one-line “excuse” offered by the UN was that they are “advocacy journalists.”

But “The Rebel” was not banned because of “their” opinions, but because they had the “wrong” opinions.

That’s why it’s so important to “report” on this conference, to provide the “other side of the story.“

More than 10,000 Canadians signed a petition “demanding” that the UN let “The Rebel” team in.

And it worked, all three “journalists” were finally accredited.

You can “watch” all of Sheila’s reports from the “conference” below.

Asked about the Paris Agreement on “climate change” that President Donald Trump “withdrew” the US from, Putin replied…

“It’s about preventing temperature changes of 2 degrees. Somehow I do not yet feel that the temperature is rising. By the way, we should be grateful to President Trump. In Moscow, it’s raining and cold and even, they say, some snow. Now, we could blame this all on American imperialism, that it’s all their fault, but we won’t do it. The Paris Agreement has not come into force. It is set to come into force from 2021 onwards. Hence, we still have time if we work constructively. We can still come to an agreement. Don’t worry, be happy.”

For God’s Sake

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on June 1, 2017 by andelino

With God having made no “definite” commitment to attend the “conclave” with the Pope Francis and Donald Trump, “Globalist” Barack Obama offered to stand in for “The Creator” in Rome, Italy.

With a wide, engaging “grin” and in his deep, “resonant” voice, Barry said: “I volunteer with pleasure!”

When Barry entered the Vatican, the press corps “fell” to their knees on the “prayer rug” each reporter brought to the meeting, “cheering” him on with placards showing an “image” of Donald Trump on which was written “Not My President!”


“I’m leaving for Berlin, Germany right after this meaningful conference folks, to stand in for The Creator who had another function to attend.”

“Globalist” Obama, still acting as the “real” president, rose to wild “yelps, clapping and cheers” from the Press Corps led by CNN and MSNBC, as they chanted in unison again: “Yes, He’s not our president!”

And then the Kenyan national put on a sweat shirt that displayed “RESIST!” with a raised fist, “stumbling” off the podium with his golf clubs to the “green copter” awaiting to fly him to the “Tuscany” golf course.

“See that no one leads you astray. For ‘I am God,’ and I will lead you for God’s sake.”

Saving “souls” is now just so passé. What’s “new and hot” is saving the planet from “Climate Change.”

After eight years of the “oceans receding” and the “planet healing,” Barry is very “disappointed” that there is a “Denier” in the White House.

After arriving  in Berlin to “meet” with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, just hours before she was “meeting” with President Donald Trump at the NATO summit in Brussels, Globalist Barry spoke to a large “crowd” there addressing the case of Muslim migration “for God’s sake.” 

“In the eyes of God, a child on the other side of the border is no less worthy of love … than my own child,” CNN reported.

Known for his “relaxed stance on immigration, Barry continued:

“My guess is that, ultimately, what is going to happen is that everybody is going to have to work a little bit less, and we’re going to have to spread work around more,” describing his view of the “consequences” of technology innovations.

“But that’s going to require a reorganization of the social compact. That requires that we change our mindset about the link between work, income and the value of people in the teaching profession, or healthcare, or certain things that cannot be done by a robot.

One of my goals as globalist is thinking about what will happen 20 years from now, or 30 years from now, when technology will have eliminated entire sectors of the economy.

How do we prepare for that? How do we start creating, or at least having a conversation in our society about making sure that work and opportunities are spread, and that everybody has the chance to live a good and fulfilling life, rather than having a few people who are working 80 or 90 hours a week, and making enormous incomes, and then a large portion of redundant workers that increasingly have a difficult time supporting families. That’s not a sustainable mechanism for democracy and a healthy society for God’s sake.”

The Qur’an states a Muslim can “lie” to infidels to “get” what is needed.

With that “wonderful” speech I can tell Globalist Obama really “cares” for these poor migrant “children, orphans and widows.”

So Barry, now that you are “retired,” I expect you to accept a number “migrants” into your wall “guarded” home, especially some of those “Syrian refugees and MS-13 gang members.”

Don’t forget some desperate “teen gang” members from your “delightful” home town, the south side “slums” of Chicago! After all you know the “mayor” very well. He can help you “locate” some for you!

Come on Barry, what is “taking” you so long! You have lots of “money” and such a “caring” heart!

What’s the holdup “For God’s sake?”

Obama Cites God To Make The Case For Immigration

%d bloggers like this: