Watch Trey Gowdy Shred the IRS Chief on National TV [VIDEO]

 

Watch Trey Gowdy Shred the IRS Chief on National TV [VIDEO]

There was a contentious hearing Monday night in the House Government Reform Committee, as new IRS Commissioner John Koskinen was called to testify about Lois Lerner’s “lost” emails.

This hearing was just days after Koskinen was reamed by Rep. Paul Ryan, who told him “nobody believes you” in a House Ways and Means Committee hearing.

Trey Gowdy was in top form Monday night, giving Koskinen a lesson in the law, and no doubt added a few more lines to his growing list of already impressive quotes.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter right now:

Gowdy began his five minutes of questioning with an explanation of what “spoliation of evidence” means, and how in a courtroom a jury can infer wrongdoing on the part of a defendant if they “spoliate” or destroy/lose/hide evidence.  The IRS “losing” two years worth of Lois Lerner’s emails leads the American people to infer that such evidence may have hurt the IRS’s claim that no wrongdoing occurred.

Gowdy then asked Koskinen how he was so sure there was no criminal wrongdoing in the IRS, when he wasn’t familiar with the relevant criminal statutes. (H/T The Blaze)

“Spoliation of evidence is when a party fails to preserve evidence, there’s a negative inference that the jury can draw from their failure to preservethe evidence.  If you destroy documents, the jury can infer that those documents wouldn’t have been good for you.”

“If a taxpayer is being sued by the IRS, administratively, civilly, or prosecuted criminally, and they fail to keep documents, the jury can draw a negative inference from the fact that they failed to keep receipts, or emails, or documents.  So if it’s true and applies to a taxpayer, it oughtto apply to the IRS as well, agreed?”, said Gowdy.

“Is this a trial, is this a jury, is that what this is?” Koskinen asked.

“I said administrative, civil, or criminal, if you want to go down that road I’m happy to go down it with you Commissioner.”

“You have already said multiple times today that there was no evidence that you found of any criminal wrongdoing,” Gowdy said. “I want you to tell me what criminal statutes you’ve evaluated.”

“I have not looked at any,” Koskinen replied.

“Well then how can you possibly tell our fellow citizens that there’s not criminal wrongdoing if you don’t even know what statutes to look at?” Gowdy shot back.

Koskinen repeated again that he had seen no evidence of wrongdoing, but was cut off by Gowdy.

“How would you know what elements of the crime existed?” Gowdy asked. “You don’t even know what statutes are in play.  I’m gonna ask you again, what statutes have you evaluated?”

Koskinen said he can rely on common sense, but was again cut off by an incredulous Gowdy.

“Common sense? Instead of the criminal code, you want to rely on common sense?” Gowdy said as Koskinen shook his head at the table.

“You can shake your head all you want to, Commissioner. You have said today that there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, and I’m asking you what criminal statutes you have reviewed to reach that conclusion.”

“I have reviewed no criminal statutes”, said Koskinen.

“Alright, so you don’t have any idea whether there was any criminal conduct or not because you don’t know the elements of the offense.”

“What did she (Lois Lerner) mean when she said we needed a project, but we need to be careful that it doesn’t appear to be per se political?  You don’t think that is a potential violation of 1842?  Because you haven’t looked at 1842, you don’t have any idea Commissioner.  You don’t have any idea whether there is any criminal wrongdoing or not.”

Koskinen then tried to spin it back to there being no evidence of involvement by the White House, calling it a conspiracy theory and made up by Republicans.

“No sir, you are wrong about that. You are repeating a talking point from my colleagues on the other side that we’re obsessed with the White House.”

“It was Jay Carney that perpetuated the myth that it was two rogue agents in Ohio, it wasn’t any of us. Was that accurate?” Gowdy asked.

“Not that I know of,” Koskinen replied.

“So that was inaccurate and that came from the White House. Who said there’s not a smidgen of corruption?”

“My understanding is that was the president,” the commissioner answered.

“So that’s Jay Carney and the president both inserting themselves into the IRS scandal,” Gowdy said. “And you want to blame us for bringing the White house into it?”

“I haven’t blamed you at all,” Koskinen said.

“You just did, commissioner. You just did.”

Trey Gowdy nailed Koskinen, and it is a shame that he only had five minutes.  Gowdy used his prosecutorial skills and knowledge of the law to prove that the IRS chief has absolutely no idea if anything criminal occurred or not.

There is little doubt that wrongdoing took place, and the convenience of the timeline on which everything occurred only raises more suspicions.

It is high time for a special prosecutor to conduct an investigation.  The Justice Department investigation is a sham, and the IRS seems content to wait for another ineffective Inspector General investigation to take place before making any changes or drawing any conclusions.

Hopefully, people will eventually be held accountable.  Perhaps that will occur under the next administration.  Maybe Trey Gowdy should be nominated as Attorney General under the next Republican administration, then turned loose to fully investigate and prosecute each and every criminal crony in the Obama administration.

Related posts:

1. VIDEO: Trey Gowdy Explains Why Lois Lerner Should Be Arrested
2. WATCH: Congressman Obliterates IRS Chief, “Nobody Believes You”
3. Trey Gowdy: Charge Lois Lerner “Contempt of Congress”

Watch Trey Gowdy Shred the IRS Chief on National TV [VIDEO]
Ben Marquis
Tue, 24 Jun 2014 17:48:25 GMT

Trey Gowdy OWNS Irs Commissioner John Koskinen. Trey Gowdy vs Irs Commis...

When is a spending increase a spending cut?

 

In the bizzaro world of Congress of course…

Two weeks ago Congress considered the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (T-HUD) Act.   The bill appropriated $52 billion in discretionary spending, an increase of $1.2 billion above what was appropriated last year.

However, the Appropriations Committee claims they actually reduced spending because part of the increase was intended to offset decreasing Federal Housing Administration receipts (which are usually used as an offset against spending). Got that? I guess it never occurred to the appropriators that one way to respond to reduced revenues is to actually cut spending.

In other budgetary news, last week the House considered the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill. The bill spends $490.9 billion on “defenses”–a $4.1 billion increase above last year’s levels. However, this is not enough of an increase for our “fiscally conservative” Congress as the bill also included $79.4 in “Overseas Contingency Operations” (OCO) funding. Campaign for Liberty is working with a coalition to end OCO funding and continues to work to end all budget gimmicks and reduce spending as part of our push for Real Cuts, Right Now.

The post When is a spending increase a spending cut? appeared first on Campaign for Liberty.

When is a spending increase a spending cut?
Norm Singleton
Mon, 23 Jun 2014 20:01:09 GMT

GOP leadership’s hysterical attacks on Massie Amendment

 

Not only did every member of the GOP leadership vote against the Massie amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill forbidding warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, they also distorted the amendment in their official summary and vote recommendation:

Massie Amdt- “Prohibits funds from being used to fully exploit lawfully collected foreign intelligence information collected under Sec. 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.”

The Massie Amendment actually forbid the collection of information on American citizens in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. While it does end the practice of using a US citizen’s contacts with a foreign target as a justification for warrantless surveillance of that citizen, it does nothing to stop the lawful collection of information on foreigners suspected of plotting terrorists’ acts against the US.

The GOP leadership’s summary may be the only piece of information many members and staffers will see on an amendment before voting on it. So the fact that the Massie Amendment received a majority of Republicans votes despite the GOP leadership’s distortions makes this victory even more significant. Even Congress now no longer falls for the hysterical argument that we must trade liberty for phantom promises of security.

The post GOP leadership’s hysterical attacks on Massie Amendment appeared first on Campaign for Liberty.

GOP leadership’s hysterical attacks on Massie Amendment
Norm Singleton
Tue, 24 Jun 2014 16:53:11 GMT

Hillary Clinton’s Legacy: Defending Rapists and Sexual Predators

Hillary Clinton's Legacy: Defending Rapists and Sexual Predators

Katie Pavlich | Jun 19, 2014

 

Earlier this week, audio of Hillary Clinton gleefully defending a child rapist was published by the Washington Free Beacon’s Alana Goodman.

In 1975 during her time as an attorney, Clinton took on the case of Thomas Alfred Taylor, a man who brutally raped a 12-year-old girl at the age of 41. Clinton said she thought Taylor was guilty.
The issue isn’t her defense of the accused rapist; after all, this is America and even the worst and most evil villains in our society are entitled to an attorney. Instead, the issue is Clinton’s behavior after getting Taylor out of a lengthy sentence for his crime when she thought he was guilty. He served less than one year in prison.
“Describing the events almost a decade after they had occurred, Clinton’s struck a casual and complacent attitude toward her client and the trial for rape of a minor," Goodman reported about the audio. "‘I had him take a polygraph, which he passed – which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,’ she added with a laugh. Clinton can also be heard laughing at several points when discussing the crime lab’s accidental destruction of DNA evidence that tied Taylor to the crime.”

Apparently accidental destruction of DNA evidence wasn't enough for Clinton to go on, so she attacked the 12-year-old victim as possibly emotionally unstable and someone who may be exaggerating or romanticizing a sexual experience.
Shocking? Sure, but this newly uncovered audio is just one piece of Hillary Clinton’s long legacy, career and life of defending sexual predators. Clinton’s history of brushing sexual assault and abuse of young women under the rug for her own personal and political gain is fully documented in my new book Assault and Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women, which will be published on July 8.
Fast forward a few years after a giddy Clinton relieved a child rapist of any real consequence or justice and you'll find that for decades she willfully helped destroy the women who her husband, former President Bill Clinton, was accused of sexually assaulting or raping. Time and again instead of holding her husband accountable, she defamed his female accusers as mentally unstable loons looking for money. Clinton repeatedly allowed women to be lied about, smeared and manipulated so her philandering husband could hold onto power, which eventually led to her own as a Senator from New York, a presidential candidate, and President Obama's Secretary of State.
But speaking of her record at the State Department, what exactly did Clinton do during her tenure there? She ignored alleged rampant sexual abuse of minor girls by high ranking State Department employees.
Under her watch, U.S. Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman was accused of routinely ditching his “protective security detail in order to solicit sexual favors from both prostitutes and minor children,” in a nearby park according to an internal memo written by a chief inspector general investigator. A State Department security official stationed in Beirut was accused of engaging in multiple sexual assaults. Further, a U.S. Embassy official was removed for allegedly trading visas for sexual favors.
As CBS News first reported last year, at least seven of Clinton’s security agents routinely hired prostitutes on official trips overseas. Their behavior was described as “endemic.” Although the agents were eventually reassigned, they weren’t seriously punished. When investigations were launched into misconduct, they were immediately shut down by Clinton’s former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills.
The female whistleblowers who spoke out against and exposed the abuse were retaliated against for doing so. Whistleblower Kerry Howard was “run out of the foreign service,” stripped of her job and was bullied after exposing U.S. Consul General Donald Moore allegedly engaged in sexual activities with women inside his government office and with call girls in Naples.
This is just a snap shot of Clinton’s legacy of defending rapists and sexual predators. She’s done it for decades yet somehow has been portrayed as a women’s rights champion. Her record proves the opposite. Hillary Clinton is America’s most famous enabler of abusive and powerful men.

Hillary Clinton's Legacy: Defending Rapists and Sexual Predators
Katie Pavlich
Thu, 19 Jun 2014 04:01:00 GMT

Central Banks in Other Countries to Require Biometrics to Bank

Central Banks in Other Countries to Require Biometrics to Bank

By Melissa Melton on June 24, 2014

You think the big brother surveillance state is getting creepy here in America, check out what central banks are doing in other countries.

Via All Africa:

In line with the ongoing initiative of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Bankers’ Committee (comprising Chief Executives of the nation’s deposit money banks), banks across the country are to begin capturing of customer biometric data as part of Bank Verification Numbers (BVN).

The rollout of the BVN solution for the identification and verification of bank customers is expected to begin in 1,000 selected bank branches across Lagos, as a prelude to a nationwide rollout.

This is in alignment with the phased approach adopted in executing the three-tiered Know-Your-Customer (KYC) and cashless policy of the CBN.

That’s right. In addition to the Central Bank of Nigeria’s new cashless policy — which aims at “reducing” the amount of paper money and coins circulating in the economy and encouraging more electronic transactions by adding a ‘cash handling charge’ — a new biometric program will require customers to sign up for a Bank Verification Number and present themselves at any branch for fingerprinting (all 10 fingers), facial image capture, and more.

No customer will be able to do any banking whatsoever without those fingerprints.

Some articles have also tossed around voice recognition and retina scans as well.

All to “revolutionize” banking…for people’s safety and security, of course.

CBN Governor Lamido Sanusi launched the new biometric registration at the head office on behalf of the Bankers’ Committee in February. Punch quoted Sanusi as saying, “We have launched the Bank Verification Number today, the timetable suggests that within 18 months, every customer would have been registered. This is a day that we would remember for many reasons, not for where we are but where we are likely to get from here. Nobody can steal this identity except he or she steals my fingers…”

Apparently this guy hasn’t seen a whole lot of science fiction films.

The nation of India has instituted similar measures, recently rolling out a massive biometric identity system which aims to collect the iris and fingerprints of every single one of its over a billion citizens, linked to a 12-digit identity number.

Never mind that iris scanners and fingerprint IDs have all been easily fooled. Someone has been reading a lot of the Bible lately, specifically Revelations.

These types of measures are being rolled out in developing nations first, but don’t worry, they’ll make their way here soon enough.

Eventually, no one will be able to buy or sell anything without giving up their biometrics to big brother and his database.

U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo are already piloting voice recognition biometrics as I type this.

Central Banks in Other Countries to Require Biometrics to Bank
Melissa Melton
Tue, 24 Jun 2014 08:00:54 GMT

Monsanto Security Tries to Block Reporters at Headquarters

Monsanto Security Tries to Block Reporters at Headquarters

By Aaron Dykes on June 24, 2014

(TruthstreamMedia.com)

Despite preaching “transparency” in its corporate policy, Monsanto is so secretive it has worked overtime behind the scenes to block GMO labeling, influence politicians and intimidate free speech – even outside its own headquarters.

‘

Monsanto – often dubbed “The World’s Most Evil Corporation” is a $15 billion U.S.-based multinational agrochemical and genetically modified seed company. Despite the fact that millions all over the world consume Monsanto’s GM seeds hidden in unlabeled food products every day – primarily in the form of GMO corn, soy, oil and beet sugar – the people of the United States and other parts of the globe are not allowed to know what they are eating. This is to the outrageous point that the company’s lobbying firm is suing the State of Vermont for trying to mandate GMO labeling (after voters demanded it).

Yet, one of Monsanto’s own official tenets in its company “pledge” is transparency.

But Truthstream Media.com reporters found out the hard way that the company is very protective of its image, of public information about its operations and of its political clout.

THIS VIDEO shows what happens when you try to film on a public sidewalk outside Monsanto’s world headquarters in Creve Couer, Missouri (a suburb of St. Louis) – where no parking signs and restrictive city ordinances have already attempted to intimidate and shutter public demonstrations and news reporters.

RELATED: City passes ordinance to protect Monsanto world headquarters from protesters
http://truthstreammedia.com/city-passes-ordinance-to-protect-monsanto-world-headquarters-from-protesters/

Monsanto Security Tries to Block Reporters at Headquarters
Aaron Dykes
Tue, 24 Jun 2014 09:42:53 GMT

Sarah Palin: Don’t Vote for ANYONE Who Ignores the Constitution [READ]

Sarah Palin: Don’t Vote for ANYONE Who Ignores the Constitution [READ]

“We wholeheartedly agree with Palin in this instance, the American people need to vote out of office any member of Congress that ignores their duty under the Constitution to provide a check and balance to the out-of-control President, or else our country is lost.”

Something must be done soon to address the humanitarian crisis developing along our southern border, as President Obama’s lax enforcement of immigration policies has resulted in a flood of illegal immigrants coming across the border, many of them unaccompanied children.

Texas has stepped up and announced a “border surge” to shut down the border by themselves, since the feds won’t do it, and several militia groups are mobilizingto give them assistance.

Sarah Palin has been all over this issue, telling Congress they have no guts for not stopping Obama from allowing this, and saying Obama is “un-American” for giving better treatment to illegal immigrants than to our nation’s veterans.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter right now:

Palin continues in a Facebook post with a warning to the American people to look closely at their elected representatives in Congress, and to vote out anyone that continues to ignore the Constitution.

Hang on to your hat, because here’s the issue: Barack Obama has orchestrated this newest “crisis” in order to overload the system with the intention of “fixing” the problems his own policies create – by fiat, and that infamous phone and pen; screw the rule of law. He’s warned you by proudly claiming his executive orders can bypass the peoples’representatives and obviously ignore the will of the people.

This exploitation of foreigners’ children is an inhumane ploy to enticefamilies to break laws by literally shoving kids across one of Obama’s infamous and irrelevant lines, with assurance that parents, aunties, step-uncles and third cousins twice removed will get to cut in line too – that sacred line that previously led law abiding, hardworking immigrants to build this great nation. Barack Obama will keep phoningin and penning the message that he will NOT secure borders, so, hey, extended undocumented relatives, you’re free to join the kids being used and abused to snag that golden ticket. Obama surely knows a nation is not a nation without borders, while we must surely know this is the “fundamental transformation of America” that he promised and some of us warned about.

Congress and American voters, how long will you let Team Obama get away with this? The recent avalanche of devastating crises caused by a president believing he is above the law has set the most dangerous precedent a once-free people can imagine. To encourage and reward lawlessness by refusing to enforce the will of the people as proven by laws passed by our political representatives is the signature of a tyrant. In this case, Obama’s refusal to enforce immigration laws and his blatant suggestion that his chosen illegal activity will be rewarded are proof of his tyrannical tactics. The recent numerous manipulated “crises” have the media pinging and ponging trying to keep up with what is the scandal of the day, which one overshadows another, and how will they distract next, and who’s on first?! Purposeful decisions causing these crises are meant to overload the system, justify abuse of executive power to “fix” it all, and ultimately tighten control of the people.

So, how much more will you take, Congress and We the People? I sense not enough guts in D.C. to file impeachment charges against Team Obama for their countless documented illegalities, so the way to stop this is at the ballot box. To fundamentally restore America to her destined exceptionalism you must get involved and then get to that box. Use YOUR phone and pen to support conservative candidates who will fight for what is right: Constitutionally protected freedom, respected military, free markets to create jobs, and secured borders to protect jobs! We need your help to do this; it takes more than a village to fortify the homeland. ANYONE associated with support for Obama’s deceptive ploys that would stoop to using and abusing innocent children must be voted out of office. ANYONE who has shined the boot that Obama’s put on the neck of our economy and security must be held accountable by those with the legal power to do so – Congress. And then We the People hold Congress accountable. Do not vote for any politician who has gone wobbly on their commitment to respect the will of the people and to fight to defend our Constitution. This wishy-washy status quo has got to go.

As usual, Sarah Palin is right.  Members of Congress need to remember their oath of office, which is to uphold and defend the Constitution.  The American people need to hold their feet to the fire, reminding them of their oath and duty.

President Obama has ignored, disregarded, and outright violated the Constitution on so many different occasions, that it is getting difficult to remember them all.  Congress’ responsibility is to keep the Executive in check, and the Constitution provides them with ways to do so.

We wholeheartedly agree with Palin in this instance, the American people need to vote out of office any member of Congress that ignores their duty under the Constitution to provide a check and balance to the out-of-control President, or else our country is lost.

 

Related posts:

1. Sarah Palin: If Congress Had “Guts”, They’d Impeach Obama
2. Sarah Palin: The Way Obama Treats Vets is “Un-American”
3. Sarah Palin: If Obama Defaults, It’s an “Impeachable Offense” (Video)

Sarah Palin: Don’t Vote for ANYONE Who Ignores the Constitution [READ]
Ben Marquis
Tue, 24 Jun 2014 20:35:34 GMT

Israel Helps ISIS with Airstrikes Against the Syrian Government

Ironic - Israel Helps ISIS with Airstrikes Against the Syrian Government

23.Jun.2014 | SCG

By providing free air support for the Syrian rebels, Israel is actually helping ISIS approach its goal of establishing an Islamic caliphate in Iraq and Syria. Not too smart.

Yesterday Israel launched airstrikes against Syria yet again, hitting at least military targets and killing several Syrian soldiers. These strikes were supposedly in response to a cross border rocket attack that left an Israeli teenager dead at the Golan Heights border. The reality of the matter however, is that there is no evidence that the Syrian government had any involvement in the initial rocket attack, and it is far more likely to be the work of the Syrian rebels.

Israel doesn't care. It's response was in keeping with their long standing policy which holds the Syrian government responsible for any attacks emanating from its territory, regardless of who actually carries them out. Kind of hard to control everything that happens inside your territory when you have the U.S. government and its allies arming and funding insurgents in an attempt to overthrow you don't you think?

The Syrian Foreign Ministry issued a statement condemning the Israeli air strikes, referring to them as a "flagrant violation" of its sovereignty and a sign of the "direct and continuous support" that Israel is giving to rebels fighting against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The irony here, is that by launching airstrikes against the Syrian government in response to an attack that was most likely carried out by the Syrian rebels, Israel is actually encouraging future attacks like this. It's easy for the rebels to launch missiles across into Israel, and Israel's response is essentially free air support. So clearly it is in the rebel's interest to shoot over into the Israeli side as often as possible.

Israel's continued attacks on the Syrian government are particularly bizarre considering the current context. With ISIS rapidly gaining influence in both Iraq and Syria (they just took 4 new towns in Iraq over the weekend), it would behoove Israel to consider what would actually happen if Assad fell. Do they actually want a rabid extremist group to establish an Islamic caliphate on their border?

Sunday's attack wasn't the first time Israel has attacked Syrian forces during this conflict. In 2013 Israel launched airstrikes in May, July and October.

As of yet the U.N. and the rest of what the U.S. likes to call the "international community" have refrained from issuing any condemnation for the airstrikes.

Israel Helps ISIS with Airstrikes Against the Syrian Government
Mon, 23 Jun 2014 05:00:00 GMT

Rand Paul: Where’s the ‘Clear-cut American Interest’ in Fighting ISIS?

Rand Paul: Where’s the ‘Clear-cut American Interest’ in Fighting ISIS?

• Politics
• US

By: Joshua Cook Jun 23, 2014

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) told Meet the Press’ David Gregory Sunday morning that he didn’t see the U.S.’s interest in engaging in military operations against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Here are some excerpts from the interview on Sunday:

Gregory: ISIS is a terrorist organization, has been build by many as a clear and present danger to the United States as a terrorist actor, do you see that?

Paul: I look at it on a personal basis, I ask, do I want to send one of my sons or your son to fight to regain Mosul? And I think, well, these are nasty terrorists which we should wanna kill them, but who should want to stop them more? Maybe the people who live there. Should not the Shiites the Maliki government? Should they not stand up? And if they’re ripping their uniforms off inflating, if they don’t think Mosul is worth saving how am I going to convince my son or your son to die for Mosul? I know they are bad terrorist and yes, we should prevent them from exporting terror, but I’m not so sure where the clear-cut American interest is.

Gregory: Well, is the clear-cut American interest to protect America if these are terrorist who designed to hit America?

Paul: Well, I think if they are, then maybe we shouldn’t be funding their allies and supporting them in Syria. You see they are emboldened because we’ve been supporting them; it could be that Assad could have wiped these people out months ago. So what we do is we get in a confusing situation and I personally believe that this group would not be in Iraq and would not be as powerful, had we not been supplying their allies in the war as well as our allies are funding these people. They probably have weapons that were bought with Saudi Money or Kuwait money or Qatar money. A lot of the radicals have been getting arms and money from these countries.

Gregory: So do you support the President who says like you do look, the Iraqi should stand up and fight them but he also wants to send 300 advisers there to help out?

Paul: I don’t question the 300 advisers for this reason. I’m not sure exactly where they’re going and what they’re doing. I do think that we have an embassy there and we’ve got a thousand, two thousand people there, that yes, we have to defend our embassy. So I’m not going to nitpick the president and say “Oh, you shouldn’t send in a certain amount of advisers” and the military decisions are protect the embassy. It to me is very important. I’ve been talking a lot about Benghazi and how we didn’t protect them. So I’m not going to get involved to criticize the president for trying to protect our embassy there.

Rand Paul: Where’s the ‘Clear-cut American Interest’ in Fighting ISIS?
Joshua Cook
Tue, 24 Jun 2014 01:48:19 GMT