Trending Topics:

Rand Paul turned into a hawk on Iran and libertarians are burning his stuff

on 42 Comments

It hurts, being betrayed by someone you cared for – by someone you trusted. All those old pictures of better times serve as but stinging reminders of what once was had but now is lost. For 31-year-old Jayel Aheram, however, there were no tears. The former Marine turned antiwar activist was firmly in the righteous phase of the breakup.

“I fucking love Ron Paul so much,” he told me on the roof of his apartment building in downtown Los Angeles, “but I just don’t have the same admiration for Rand.” Indeed, my token libertarian friend then set fire to a pair of the Kentucky Republican’s “Stand with Rand” t-shirts, estimated value: $35. A handful of 20-somethings drank beer as the senator’s merchandise went up in flames. These were not normal people, to be sure: they were libertarians and, just a couple months back, several of them were phone-banking for the Paul campaign, while Aheram just had his selfie with the presidential hopeful, taken during a campaign stop in Irvine, featured in The New York Times: The two had just connected over their shared opposition to the NATO war in Libya right before he took it, Aheram told me. They looked so happy.

So what prompted such a fiery stunt on a Saturday night? Simple: The son of Ron opposes the deal with Iran over its nuclear program, faulting the agreement for lifting sanctions on the Islamic Republic before “evidence of compliance.” Paul still insists he prefers peace to war – who doesn’t? – and that he favors a negotiated settlement to the West’s standoff with the Islamic Republic, he just doesn’t support the only one that will ever happen, functionally making him pro-war. Worst of all: He’s lying to do it.

The agreement itself guarantees Iran will not be able to get a nuclear weapon that it was never shown it was trying to obtain. In exchange for the lifting of sanctions, Iran agreed to give up 97 percent of its enriched uranium and to forgo enrichment beyond 3.67 percent, far below what could be considered weapons-grade. The International Atomic Energy Agency will also be allowed to conduct 24/7 surveillance of its remaining centrifuges, after Iran agreed to give up more than two-thirds of the ones it has now.

“From what I understand, it’s a good deal,” said 24-year-old Whitney Davis, a student at the University of Southern California and member of Young Americans for Liberty. Rand Paul’s campaign merchandise simmered in a baking pan behind her, the toxic smell providing all, leftist and libertarian alike, an opportunity to ponder state regulation of the textile industry and communist China’s role in feeding the free market. “Iranians were celebrating in the streets over the lifting of sanctions,” Davis said. “I feel like that’s what we want as libertarians.”

Some libertarians, at least. Ron Paul, for instance, considers sanctions against Iran an “act of war,” and indeed Iranians unable to obtain life-saving medicine for a loved one may be forgiven for confusing this tool of the statesmen for a siege. Rand Paul, by contrast, has said sanctions can be “a tool to achieve a desired result without war.” When Secretary of State John Kerry appeared on Capitol Hill last week to defend the Iran deal, Paul the younger explained that he did not believe the very agreement sanctions were designed to coerce (“a desired result”) mustn’t be lifted; rather, there should be “a phased reduction over a many-year period.”

The libertarians I talked to think his heart’s not in it: He’s just doing this because he’s running for president and needs to appeal to jingoistic Republican primary voters and the party’s even more hawkish donors. They also think it’s dumb. What billionaire militarist is going to decide their guy is Rand Paul (currently hovering at around 5 percent nationally) when there are 15 more reliable proxies to choose from? What he’s actually doing is alienating the only demographic in the country that actually likes him: Young people between the ages of 18 and 34, according to a a recent survey by CNN, are the only ones who view him more favorably than not. It is also young people who are the most supportive of the nuclear deal with Iran. And it is the earnest young libertarians busy burning his stuff who Rand needs to be doing what they were doing three months ago: volunteering for his campaign.

Aheram probably isn’t going to do that again. He’s forgiven Rand his previous trespasses, “but this is different,” he told me: he’s lending his reputation as not-the-worst-Republican to a campaign that aims to derail one of those rare instances of successful diplomacy (excepting the kind that leads to a coup). “And,” Aheram continued, “he is straight-up lying about it.”

torching the t-shirt

Jayel Aheram, torching the t-shirt

After he cross-examined Kerry, Politico credited Paul for having “adopted a more dispassionate, even diplomatic stance” than some of his more bellicose colleagues (their story: “Rand Paul the diplomat“). The report noted that Paul cited Iran’s Supreme Leader to bolster his case against the agreement. While the Obama administration claims “this would prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon,” said Paul, Ayatollah Khamenei “is saying the opposite.” In fact, Khameni is “already saying, well, this isn’t really any limitation on our ability to make a weapon.”

Paul repeated the claim after the hearing during an appearance on Fox Business:

I made a point that the ayatollah is now saying that the deal does not prevent them from having a nuclear weapon and I thought that’s precisely what the deal is supposed to do, so I don’t know how we can have an agreement that President Obama says means one thing, John Kerry says means one thing, but the ayatollah says doesn’t mean that at all.

What neither Fox nor Politico reported is that Khamenei has said no such thing. “The Americans say they stopped Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” is what the ayatollah has in fact stated. “They know it’s not true.” Read uncharitably, one could perhaps interpret this statement as sinister, but for one thing – it is immediately followed by this: “We had a fatwa, declaring nuclear weapons to be religiously forbidden under Islamic law. It had nothing to do with the nuclear talks.” An unambiguous assertion that Iran never wanted a nuke has been twisted into a statement that no one can stop the Islamic Republic from getting one.

This isn’t a case of a bad translation: It’s a conscious lie of omission from a politician who wants to have it both ways: to be perceived as a friend of peace even as he tosses red meat to the dogs of war, an act that alienates those who would otherwise be his energized base and yet still hasn’t won him any friends at The Weekly Standard. The libertarians I spoke to were all a bit demoralized by it: economy-crashing sanctions are a form of war and Rand is making a full-on one more likely.

After the senator went so far as to argue for military action against Iran should it ever be caught trying to develop a nuclear weapon, something no US intelligence agency believes it is trying to do and which Paul conceded wouldn’t really help – he was on talk radio, where it’s the gut that counts – The American Conservative’s Daniel Larison declared it the final straw. “If there are still any Paul supporters that have been trying to find a silver lining in the senator’s increasingly hawkish foreign policy positions,” he wrote, “this should be enough to persuade them to stop trying.”

If he helps derail the Iran deal – unlikely as that is, requiring a veto-proof two-thirds majority in the Senate – anti-war libertarians might indeed bail on the Rand campaign. But as with his support for a larger military budget and his efforts to cut off aid to the Palestinians but conspicuously not the Israeli military, I suspect many will do what partisans of all persuasions do during election time and dismiss their candidate’s flaws as just the rhetoric of the campaign trail. A skeptic might note that campaign rhetoric is traditionally more attractive than the policies a candidate pursues once in power, George W. Bush having been for a “humble” foreign policy too, but such electoral downers should probably just hibernate until December 2016.

Mid-way through the shirt burning a friend of mine, Pavel, a visitor from the normal world, showed up for the free beer and liquor that I told him there was to be had. Once beveraged, I made him my man-on-the-street. “So, Pavel,” I asked, stupidly, “what do you think about Rand Paul?”

With distance often comes clarity; having never been invested in something, one is better positioned to analyze it without the distorting influence of sentiment. “He’s just a shitty pseudo-libertarian politician, right?” said Pavel, to which many of his once-and-future faithful would say: Yeah, basically. Some may persist in viewing him as a lesser evil, of course, and in a general election with Hillary Clinton he might still be the dove, no matter how hard he tries to be the hawk, but I’m willing to bet even his most ardent supporters would agree that when it comes to foreign policy he’s definitely the lesser Paul.

Charles Davis is a writer in Los Angeles whose work has been published by outlets such as Al Jazeera, The Nation, The New Republic and Salon.

Charles Davis

Charles Davis is a writer in Los Angeles whose work has been published by outlets such as Al Jazeera, The Nation, The New Republic and Salon.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

42 Responses

  1. just on July 28, 2015, 10:07 am

    Yes, he’s “the lesser Paul”. This apple fell too far from the tree.

    I always thought he’s a stick- his- finger- in- the- wind- kinda- candidate. Completely unimpressive and more than a little dangerous, imho.

    Thanks for the article, Charles. I hope that these supporters don’t remain disillusioned, and can find someone that they feel comfortable supporting. The anti- war & correct foreign policy cause is just and right and important.

    • CigarGod on July 28, 2015, 11:25 am

      I agree.
      I used to think he gave the impression of one who never matured, and turned into an opportunist to compensate.
      I now believe his opportunism stunted his maturity.

      Poor guy is going to live as a jumpy, shrill side show.

      • ritzl on July 28, 2015, 4:10 pm

        Like GWB.

        There are so many. Politics seems to attract them.

      • CigarGod on July 28, 2015, 4:22 pm

        Yes…and I don’t even want to review the whole Clown Car. Hmmm…I guess they are all in a Clown Bus, now.

      • just on July 28, 2015, 4:26 pm

        Ha, CG. Didja hear the latest about Trump and his lawyer?

        “A lawyer and spokesman for current Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump issued a series of vulgar threats to a reporter on Monday, while falsely claiming that it was legal for a husband to rape his wife in New York.

        Michael Cohen, special counsel for the Trump Organization, threatened Canadian-American reporter Tim Mak of the Daily Beast with untold legal consequences in response to an article that resurfaced allegations that Trump had raped his then-wife Ivana.

        The statements from the real-estate tycoon’s long-time attorney may, campaign watchers said, prove to undermine a campaign that officially began with Trump’s incendiary remarks about migrants from Mexico whom he called “rapists” and has survived a series of increasingly controversial remarks over the following six weeks. …”

        Some ‘lawyer’. I hope that the reporter sues him. Sorry for the O/T~ I couldn’t resist.

      • CigarGod on July 28, 2015, 4:38 pm

        Sometimes I look for a way to be charitable to ignorant people. Never felt that need with Trump.
        Has Ivana ever spoken of this?
        Strong and smart, only a contract could keep her mouth shut.

      • ritzl on July 28, 2015, 5:19 pm

        CG: “Clown bus!” {wipes off keyboard} :))

      • just on July 28, 2015, 8:57 pm

        Here’s the Daily Beast article that sent Cohen into orbit with a history of the ‘event’, CG:

        A contract is mentioned…makes for icky reading.

      • CigarGod on July 28, 2015, 9:11 pm

        The attorney does an excellent imitation of Trump.
        sorry for Ivana.

    • Curatica on July 29, 2015, 9:11 am

      The apple fell too far from the tree, and seems already rotten.

  2. traintosiberia on July 28, 2015, 10:54 am

    Poor Paul. Did he get a phone call or an e mail from Max Boot after approving this message? Did he call him before sending the message?

    • lysias on July 28, 2015, 11:34 am

      More likely to be blackmail. I don’t see why he needs the big donors. Ron Paul ran with a lot of small donations (and some big donations from libertarian billionaires, who presumably would also have been willing to donate to the son). Bernie Sanders right now is running quite successfully on a lot of small donations.

      • JWalters on July 28, 2015, 8:44 pm

        Interesting point.

  3. Citizen on July 28, 2015, 11:54 am

    It’s really simple, Rand Paul think he is more politically practical than his father; this means he’s ready to be bought by
    Zionist dollars.

    • Curatica on July 29, 2015, 9:14 am

      “More politically practical” is an euphemism for corrupt and cynical, right?

  4. traintosiberia on July 28, 2015, 1:00 pm

    A false libertarian or one who will compromise on libertarian principles.
    Then we have ” liberal,left ,secular Zionist ” like Wiseltier who will compromise with or trample on liberal progressive idea if Zionism were threatened by liberalism or progressivism

    Here he is ranting and raving to express his emotion –

    when a simple ” I hate all Iranians ” would have done the job as was done by one of the Bush delegates to UK by name Debra Cagan ( Daily Mail UK ) , a person of few words .

    His fall is equidistant to the fall suffered or enjoyed by Howard Dean . He fell from being even – handed between Arab and Palestine to being regular fixture on TV for everything a Neocon breathe and dream of including cavorting with MEK.

    • piotr on July 28, 2015, 4:25 pm

      The news that “Wieseltier compromized liberal ideas” borders on a bad jokes. At occasion he bloviates kind of “progressively”. He is a third rated intellect passing as a “luminary”, which is of course clear to see in an outright evil piece linked by traintosiberia. Like Banderistas have a “noble cause” because they killed more Poles than Jews. More precisely, most of them were on Nazi payroll, and thus were killing Jews to make a living, but then most of them rebelled against the Nazis, deserted and made a huge massacre of Poles, and now their ideological descendants argue that the people who inspire them were anti-fascists (contrary to Russian slander).

      Slide the screen south, where “Sunni governments make a common cause with Israel” against the tyrannical regime in Tehran (or is it Qom?). And these regimes are NOT tyrannical because ….

      Egypt does not kill scores of opponents when they demonstrate, but adds a zero or two to the total. The number of death penalties, and casual manner they are imposed, beggars imagination. Add enforced adulation of the Leader and the Egypt is not fascist because … because … because … it has a common cause with Israel, that’s why!

      Saudi Arabia is not a fascist regime because it is an absolute monarchy. Something that “we, Anglo-Saxons” enjoyed in the good old days before Magna Carta. And it is not a tyranny because … because … because …

      • traintosiberia on July 28, 2015, 5:26 pm

        The Nonwar War against Iran By Laura Rozen
        National Journal .Jan 18 ,2007
        ” the emerging Washington-Saudi-Israel alliance makes perfect sense” says Kenneth Katzman. He continues” The Saudis are facing Iran in Iraq and in the Gulf states. Israel is facing Hizbullah. ” .
        Clawson cited Israeli PM ‘s public reference to Saudi in promoting peace ”

        [ we never heard about Saudi peace from Sharon,Olmert,or Netanyahu – Aparently no partner is or was available despite 27 Arab countries and Iran being ready to show up . But Clawson has a memory that is locked in Tel Aviv dumpster]

        But what ” really spooked the Arab regime” was the success of Hizbullah and popular reaction in their own countries of infatuation with Hizbullah and Iran’s defiance” not the nuclear angle
        .. Laura Rozen

        The perverse attempt to rope in Saudi support against Iran has been work in progress for a longtime.
        Clawson proposed the idea of false flag to get Iran attack US.
        Shia Sunni schism is more on their mind than has been on anyone else’s mind . It offers a rationale not unlike the one used against Saddam and Ghaddafi and Basher Assad .
        Shia Sunni fight in Iraq bears the footprints of ‘ Salvadorian Option” . It was created . Unfortunately the neocons have succeeded in creating the Divide and Rule

        Martin Indyk said ” we are going to play the old imperial rule of divide and rule,and the stakes couldn’t be higher” He argued that US shouldn’t be squeamish about pulling political strings in Iraq– 04/27/2003 Chicago Tribune by Howard Witt.

      • CigarGod on July 29, 2015, 8:40 am

        Let’s simplify:
        Any time we start hearing/seeing a campaign gathering steam, where both sides of the story are told by one side…we are being worked.
        When we hear of atrocities from the side without a voice, we are being worked.
        When we start cheering for the elimination of those we have not spoken with, the work is done.

        The format used to work us, is like a drilling rig. Once the hole is drilled in one place, the crew packs it up, moves it to another pad, and starts drilling again.

        Over and over again.
        Sometimes it is an uprising of people fighting to be free. Sometimes it just looks like a popular uprising.

  5. Atlantaiconoclast on July 28, 2015, 1:48 pm

    I am one of the few libertarians on this site, and I can attest that what was written above is so true. We are heartbroken over Rand’s craven turn. We see it as a sad, desperate attempt to appease people who will never be ok with him being Ron Paul’s son. America doesn’t deserve someone as wise as Ron Paul.

    • Citizen on July 29, 2015, 12:57 am

      Ron Paul is the only politician I ever donated to.

      • Danaa on July 29, 2015, 5:25 am

        Me too, citizen. Surprised?

        OK, I did buy Obama T shirts back in the days when hope and change suffused the airwaves…. I wear them for yard work, these days (and would for farming, if I had a farm and knew a thing about farming…though I want to, theoretically).

        Am on the fence about Bernie. Got time, will wait till the dust settles.

        Once, long ago, I thought I might like Webb. But something happened to him too on the way to the forum….

      • Atlantaiconoclast on July 29, 2015, 4:38 pm

        thank you, but I also donated to Hillary in 2008, for which I have deep shame

  6. traintosiberia on July 28, 2015, 2:55 pm

    This is time to remember a great guy who stood for what was good for US and for world peace
    Sen Lincoln Chafee didn’t vote for Bush in 2004, voted against Iraq war and blamed Bush for not following up on his( Bush’s) earlier support for peaceful negotiation towards 2 state solution . He called spade a spade and don’t allow nuances when he said” Pres Bush has embraced the concept of land for peace in word,but so far not in deed. I sometimes wonder which group has the president’s words”
    International Herald Trobune


    Monday, February, 12,2007
    He was ousted.
    Even he blamed it on the Evangelicals only. But that could be a metaphor to describe the AIPAC without underestimating the Evangelics.

    • just on July 28, 2015, 3:34 pm

      Chafee is a good and principled man.

      He eclipses Hillary entirely on FP, imho. Bernie, too.

      Good article here on Bernie with a snippet:

      “Bernie Sanders: Savior or Seducer of the Anti-War Left?

      …Sanders, like his Democratic allies, has supported Israel’s aggressive Middle East policies against Palestinian statehood. He supported HR 282, the Iran Freedom Support Act, which was similar to the resolutions leading to the Iraq War. Indeed, it appears that Sanders is even to the political Right of many liberal Democrats!…”

      • traintosiberia on July 28, 2015, 5:05 pm

        Sander is no different from Wexler,Levine,Wrexler,or Feingold. Most of them have staked out a perch of being ” anti war on Iraq” . This earned them being liberal ,antiwar,progressive etc.
        All of them in one or another fashion have supported sanctions and ” no options off the table” on Iran.
        The benefit of this type of anti war hat is that it lends itself an aura of righteousness,honesty,and being pro peace progressive . This aura then misused to justify similar unprovoked illegal aggression and sanctions,
        The cynical ploy here is not to use same discarded notorious lying figures embodied by Perle,Wolfowitz,Liberman,Lantos Ackerman but to intoroduce new faces to market same old discarded notorious illegal ideas.

      • CigarGod on July 29, 2015, 8:22 am

        You’ve got my attention.

  7. just on July 28, 2015, 5:13 pm

    Rand Paul is not on the committee, but:

    “John Kerry warns Congress: back Iran nuclear deal or face dire consequences

    The United States risks a collapse in its future negotiating credibility if it walks away from the Iranian nuclear deal, according to US secretary of state John Kerry, who argues Congress now has little choice but to back the plan.

    In his starkest warning yet to critics on Capitol Hill, Kerry also predicted the international coalition behind economic sanctions would quickly collapse and leave Iran even closer to developing an atomic bomb if the US sought to renegotiate terms. …

    …“If Congress rejects this, Iran goes back to its enrichment. The Ayatollah will not come back to the table … the sanctions regime completely falls apart,” he said.

    “We will have set ourselves back. I don’t know how I go out to another country if that happens and say: ‘Hey, you ought to negotiate with us,’ because they will say: ‘Well, you have 535 secretaries of state in the United States. We don’t know who we are negotiating with. Whatever deal we make always risks being overturned.’”

    Asked why the White House did not seek to ratify the deal as a treaty through the Senate alone, Kerry was scathing about its oversight function.

    “I spent quite a few years trying to get treaties through the US Senate, and frankly, it’s become physically impossible,” he said. “You can’t pass a treaty anymore.”…

    …But the secretary of state was adamant that the deal was the best available and was no longer up for negotiation.

    “If we walk away, we walk away alone,” he said. “Our partners are not going to be with us. Instead, they will walk away from the tough multilateral sanctions that brought Iran to the table to begin with. Instead, we will have squandered the best chance we have to solve the problem through peaceful means.”

    The former Massachusetts senator also dismissed the idea that military strikes were a realistic way of containing Iran’s nuclear potential.

    “Iran has already mastered the fuel cycle,” he said. “They have mastered the ability to produce significant amounts of fissile material. You can’t bomb away that knowledge any more than you can sanction it away.”…”

    More @

    I watched part of it~ he was impressive. You can catch some replay now on cspan 3.

    • CigarGod on July 28, 2015, 5:29 pm

      Most Presidential he’s ever looked.

      • just on July 28, 2015, 5:39 pm

        I agree :-) These Congress critters look abysmal, btw.

        (though Kerry looked very Presidential back in 2004, too) :(

      • CigarGod on July 28, 2015, 5:45 pm

        He did, but in 2004, he droned on with endless answers. He was fully answering, but imo, he put a big part of America to sleep.

      • just on July 28, 2015, 5:47 pm

        You might have had a different pov if you had been chasing him all over NH like I did!!!

      • CigarGod on July 28, 2015, 5:48 pm

        I’m sure.
        Most of my impressions came from the debates. But, it was a long time ago…in cigar years.

      • just on July 28, 2015, 5:58 pm


    • straightline on July 29, 2015, 3:22 am

      Both the article and Rand Paul still have this US-centric view of the agreement. As several commenters, including myself, and Kerry above have said, this is not about whether the sanctions stay in place, it is about whether the US chooses to be the only country in the world (well perhaps with my own unfortunately) to continue to have sanctions against Iran. And then as I have asked before “Who is being sanctioned?”. The other countries in the P5+1 have gone a very long way to keep the US happy on this – they will go no further. The only alternative to removing sanctions is probably a false flag operation and then military action and no good will come of that.

      For the US to continue sanctions would result in Iran moving even further into the Chinese and Russian spheres of influence.

  8. JLewisDickerson on July 28, 2015, 9:50 pm

    RE: He’s forgiven Rand his previous trespasses, “but this is different,” he told me: he’s lending his reputation as not-the-worst-Republican to a campaign that aims to derail one of those rare instances of successful diplomacy (excepting the kind that leads to a coup). “And,” Aheram continued, “he is straight-up lying about it.”

    MY COMMENT: Perhaps Rand Paul is lying for the “Fatherland”!*

    * SEE: “A Boy Called Bibi ~ Netanyahu on the Couch”, by Uri Avnery,, May 1-3, 2015

    [EXCERPTS] . . . On the eve of the last election, just now, Netanyahu announced that there would not be a Palestinian state as long as he was in power. When the Americans remonstrated, he repudiated himself. Why not? As his Likud predecessor, Yitzhak Shamir, famously said, “It is permitted to lie for the Fatherland.”

    Netanyahu will lie, cheat, repudiate himself, raise false flags – all for the purpose of achieving his one and only real goal, the Rock of our Existence (as he loves to say), the heritage of his father – the Jewish State from the sea to the river. . .


  9. RobertFallin on July 29, 2015, 8:55 am

    Rand has always been a treacherous S.O.B. He “enthusiastically” endorsed Romney after Romney’s thugs defrauded, intimidated and even attacked his father’s supporters. Later Romney even arranged to have Ron Paul delegates illegally detained, so they could not vote on a change in party rules invalidating the delegate selection process.

    • Atlantaiconoclast on July 29, 2015, 4:45 pm

      Yes, I agree. The dodo birds who run the GOP are clueless about what it takes to win the White House. Even if Romney had won 71% of the Latino vote, he STILL would have lost. I think the refusal of Republicans to repudiate the Bush foreign policy legacy was a huge factor in Romney’s loss.

  10. retired on July 29, 2015, 5:35 pm

    Wikipedia: After being elected to the Senate from Kentucky in 2010, Rand Paul already filed for re-election in 2016, back in 2011. By Kentucky state law, he cannot run for re-election to the US Senate in 2016, if he is the Presidential or Vice-Presidential nominee for either major party. He likes being in the Senate and the modest fame he has, and may have decided that it’s more important to secure his seat there than please his father’s movement of libertarians and peaceniks, who don’t have much influence in Bible-belt Kentucky. Christian Zionists are strong in Kentucky, and Rand Paul’s wife is a committed fundamentalist christian Zionist. She brought him into her church, dispensational Baptists I believe.
    He cannot afford to alienate her and the christian Zionists, the Republican base in Kentucky. They’re probably as strong there as in South Carolina.
    He knows that Adelson and the neocons would never countenance his being even the Vice-Presidential nominee, so most everything he says and does can be interpreted as contributing to his re-election to the Senate from Kentucky for 2016.
    Strange that he gets elected in the first place by association with his uncompromising father, and re-elected by repudiating his father’s stand in favor of the Iran agreement.
    A pol’s gotta do what he’s gotta do.

  11. JohnnySmith on July 30, 2015, 11:36 am

    Rand Paul is the most dovish man in congress. So now opposing a bad deal which gives foreign aid and nuclear power to a known enemy is hawkish? I think not.

    In fact burning his shirt is pretty ridiculous. I #StandWithRand.

    • annie on July 30, 2015, 3:59 pm

      which gives foreign aid and nuclear power to a known enemy


Leave a Reply