Pre-Emptive Attack Iran Bill Active in US House

You will often see potentially important pieces of legislation languish in the US House. A bill will remain active, meaning that it can be brought to the Floor at any time. But it flies just under the radar. Other times the language floats around Washington for years until a “crisis” necessitates its activation and passage. As we know well, what eventually became the PATRIOT Act – one of the single greatest attacks on civil liberties in US history – started out and spent much of its early life as a sugar-plumb fairy dancing in neocon fantasies. Then came 9/11 and it was dusted off and imposed on the American people. And the United States has never been – and may never be – the same. Either way, these measures are important if seldom seen.

So it may well be with H.J.Res. 10, introduced in the House just as the new Congress began at the beginning of this month. The title of the bill tells the tale: a bill “To authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces to achieve the goal of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.” This legislation, introduced by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL), is as it appears: an authorization for the President to use military force against Iran. But it is much worse than that.

Why so? Because it specifically authorizes the president to launch a pre-emptive war on Iran at any time of his choosing and without any further Congressional oversight or input. The operative sentence in the resolution reads, “The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as the President determines necessary and appropriate in order to achieve the goal of preventingIran from obtaining nuclear weapons.” (Emphasis added).

President Trump – and, importantly, his entire national security team – has been extraordinarily aggressive toward Iran, repeatedly threatening that country both at the negotiating table and on the battlefield. H.J.Res 10 would be just the blank check the Administration craves to realize such threats.

And thanks to ongoing US and allied sabre-rattling in the Persian Gulf, tensions continue to escalate. At the end of this month, the UK, US and allied military forces will take part in operation “Unified Trident,” a joint exercise in the Persian Gulf that will simulate a military confrontation with Iran.

How would Washington respond if a bill was active in the Iranian parliament authorizing war on the United States and the Iranian navy began conducting joint exercises with the Chinese in the Gulf of Mexico simulating an attack on the United States?

Daniel McAdams is director of the The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity. Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

  • Don

    Iran definitely needs a nuclear weapon or two. But it’s still not a sure thing that Iran would even allow nuclear weapons on it’s soil because it is seen to be against Muslim fundamentals.

    And so, what is more likely and has been widely predicted is that we are moving into a situation in which powerful nuclear countries will have their own proxy countries to protect. It’s most likely that this will be the case with Iran and Russia/China being the protector.

    It’s inevitable as the world sees the logic in not expanding the number of nuclear countries but understands that many proxy countries will contain their big brother’s nukes. That could even be the situation with Israel and there’s a lot of logic in that thinking. If true then it automatically allows for the expansion of such measures throughout the world. And it’s certainly already the case in some Nato countries, re. the US.

    How’s that for starting the discussion?
    Have you been thinking along those lines Daniel McAdams?

    • Blogvader

      Saddam Hussein supposedly had nukes too, but apparently his magical nukes were off hiding somewhere with Jimmy Hoffa, because we never found them.

      Are you ready to blow another seven trillion dollars and get another 4,000 American soldiers killed over magical nukes?

      • Don

        What are you on about? Saddam had no WMD’s or nukes. And the amount of money the US spends on it’s wars isn’t on my agenda. Nor are US troops. I’m a Canadian and my purpose here is to aid the antiwar cause.

        • Eileen Kuch

          I’m 100% with you on that, Don. Saddam had no nukes nor WMD’s, so the 2003 attack on Iraq was nothing more than an illegal war of aggression.
          Thank God Donald Trump was elected POTUS. He’s preparing to end these aggressive perpetual wars and concentrate on helping Russia eliminate ISIS and other dangerous Jihadists. Had Hillary Clinton been elected, we’d all be involved in World War 3 by now.
          ISIS = Israeli Secret Intelligence Service

          • hazyjane

            Eileen, did you not read the article? Trump and co. are being very aggressive toward Iran. Beyond that, he’s stated he wants to expand the military and the nuclear arsenal. That’s the opposite of ending the arms race.

            As for Israel, Trump is very chummy with Netanyahu and AIPAC. I think you need to do some research.

          • Mahnaz Mahnaz

            Hahah thats what i was thinking as if Eileen has not read the subject/content at all? Paul Allen is pushing for this? we are suffering from bad economy, plz,no more war!

          • tom kincade

            I hate to say this but if trump fights Iran he will use nuclear weapons

          • tom kincade

            Trump will use nuclear weapons against Iran that’s why he wants Putin on board no other country matters he only believes in power thru strenght

          • Robert B. Glennie

            Nuts. Iran is a Russian ally and Putin does not care much for human rights. Russia would be be America’s most formidable foe.

        • YonLittleSwine

          Where did Blogvader say that Saddam had nukes? Or am I misunderstanding this whole discussion?

          • Dave

            Don doesn’t understand sarcasm.

      • esolesek

        If red staters are stupid enough to die in more foreign wars, then let them start one. It will implode Trump’s administration, and the Pentagon and CIA will come for him directly. Trump’s public approcal will drop to 10% of something once the war starts. I predict it will be very short, and cut off before it barely gets started, becauise it isn’t 2004. The global economy can’t take the shock, and AMericans aren’t as stupid, and the powers that be know it. If the House and Trump try to start war with Iran, I see them losing the government completely. I also see a good chance the Pentagon mutinies in a way that may end up in something resembling a coup, or a very strong talking to, ie removal of Bannon and Flynn.

        • george searing

          get some help your nuts

          • esolesek

            THankfully, my nuts don’t need help.

    • Garry Compton

      Israel has nukes – who interned shared with Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia and who knows if they gave others their share of the 300 American nukes that were downgraded but went missing !

      • Don

        One misplaced or misspelled verb screwed up your whole message. Interned? Website you got it from?

        • Eileen Kuch

          The US NEVER delivered any nuclear weapons to Israel, Don. When the components needed to produce these weapons was stolen, John F. Kennedy was POTUS, and he NEVER gave the Zionist Entity the green light to produce them. When he found out that the Zionist Entity had the needed components to produce nukes, JFK was justifiably outraged. He contacted then PM David Ben-Gurion about the illegal nukes and demanded an immediate inspection of the Dimona Nuclear Weapons Facility located in the Negev Desert.
          JFK’s demand to allow the IAEA inspectors into the facility naturally sent Ben-Gurion into a panic .. and within six weeks, JFK was assassinated.

          • Don

            I know the official story very well Eileen. I’m just saying that my story makes a lot more sense.
            Israel having nuclear weapons is very much within US interests. But the US openly supplying Israel with nuclear weapons would be unforgivable. If known to be true then there would be nothing stopping Russia from nuclear arming any of it’s proxies.

            And I think that we could easily imagine that would have provided the motivation the US needed for the assassination of JFK. With that in mind, an Israel assassination of Kennedy would seem to be pretty wild tihnking.

          • chaddythedaddy

            Excuse me… the Zionist entity?

    • Tom

      Got news for you: the big impending threat is not nuclear arms, it’s custom-made, made-to-order biological weapons. That will soon become the biggest threat.

      • Don

        No Tom. Chem/bio weapons have been blown completely out of proportion as a WMD by the US.
        Even a quick glance at how the term, WMD’s has been used should tell us that.

        WMD’s are huge bombs that are dropped on people and of course the ultimate WMD which is nuclear.

        Oh, and fwiw, barrel bombs are not WMD’s. They are crude and inefficient weapons used by entities that don’t have the resources to procure modern weapons.

        • stashgal

          Bio weapons have a huge advantage over nukes by leaving ASSETS untouched.
          They can preemptively vaccinate the “chosen” then turn it loose on the rest of the rabble.
          The survivors can then be used to bury the dead, there won’t be very many survivors.
          Some diseases have a 90% mortality rate.
          The reduction in population would solve most of our problems relating to overcrowding, housing, energy
          clean air, clean water, enough food, pollution etc etc.

          • Don

            I again disagree and I think you are talking and thinking like an American.

          • stashgal

            As an ‘merican, of course I have to “think” like one, we use what tools we have access to & our corporate controlled media censors what we see & hear.
            WMD are indeed big bombs & they are very destructive however, bioweapons while not technically WMD, do have, IMO, advantages over bombs in that they leave infrastructure intact.

            What good is it to defeat an opponent if all the “goodies” & loot are destroyed?
            The usual point of defeating your “enemy” is to take his property & rape his females, blowing it all up is rather stupid IMO.

          • Don

            Blowing up the enemy’s infrastructure has little to do with the end game. Blowing up his oil refineries and oil wells and related resources does. And the US doesn’t do that. The terrorists do that.
            Raping their women is another question that isn’t relevant but both terrorists and Americans do it.

          • basileus ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ

            If her “thinking” becomes representative of what most Americans believe, then the country is too far gone to ever be redeemable.

  • David S

    Anyone who thought the democrats were the potentially sane ones when it came to foreign affairs can put that fantasy to rest. No sanity in DC since Ron Paul left.

    • Mork

      a) no one who reads this site can seriously believe that the democrats are sane on foreign policy.
      b) however, you can’t damn an entire political party because a single member of that party sponsors this kind of legislation, either.

      • David S

        But you can when they all turned a blind eye to what Obama was up to for the first 4 years and then re-elected him and turned a blind eye for the next 4 years. And I damn BOTH major political parties because of their votes and policies/platforms over the past 100+ years.

  • Donatella

    I just wonder what the Lobby promised Hastings, you can best this is not his idea.

  • disqus_feN63FpcdG

    Anything for Israel.

    • Don

      No, it’s much more likely that it’s being played on the pretense of protecting Israel. And don’t forget, that pretense is popular with the American people while outright pre-emptive war isn’t.

      Start thinking out of the box in order to catch up with the propagandists.

  • Bastiat

    This is a very troubling bill in the House of Representatives. There should never be a pre-emptive war against Iran.

    • curmudgeonvt

      There should never be a pre-emptive war against anyone. It is already illegal. It’s called a war of aggression.

      • Bastiat

        I agree completely. Wars of aggression should never be waged.

  • RickR35

    Gotta love them humanitarian Democrats.

  • PxThucydides

    Seems like it’s only a question of who, not when; and it’s starting to look like we can only hope it’s a war against Iran, instead of China, or Russia.
    Somebody without hydrogen bombs.

    • Don

      It’s very likely that you can’t have a war with Iran either. Iran is Russia’s/China’s proxy and will be protected the same way Israel is protected.

      In fact, there’s a real possibility that Russia will be installing nuclear arms in Iran in the near future. How can the US object?

      Just think of a new ME where Israel is threatened in the same way that other ME countries can be threatened. I think it’s the new reality!

      Threat without wars!

      • Eileen Kuch

        You’re right on that issue, Don. A war against Iran would definitely lead to World War 3, since it’s allied with both China and Russia.
        Donald Trump wants an alliance with Russia; so, he’s not about to do anything that would jeopardize that alliance with any illegal actions against Iran. It’s the neocons who want war with Iran .. the same neocons who desperately tried to keep Trump from winning the Presidency and install HRC as their puppet President.
        As far as installing any nuclear arms in Iran by Russia’s concerned, that’s not an option, since the Islamic State’s Supreme Leader had issued a fatwa (religious decree) against the development of nukes and installation of same. Instead, Russia’s preparing to install S-300 missile defense systems throughout that country.

        • Mork

          A war with Iran would NOT “definitely” lead to WWIII. Simply because Iran is a regional proxy of Russia/China doesn’t mean that they’ll both start firing off nukes if we invade Iran. (I’m by no means in favor of any action toward Iran, for the record.) We’ve invaded Korea and Vietnam and Cuba and meddled in Afghanistan (while the USSR was still a thing) and overthrown socialist governments the world over and the USSR never lobbed nukes at us, thank god. Israel has much more control over the US’s foreign policy than Iran has over either Russian or Chinese foreign policy.
          And as far as Pres Trump “wanting” an alliance with Russia – he wants, and says, lots of things, and frequently changes his mind on a whim. I think he wants to saddle Russia with the issue of Syria, but I don’t really think he gives a hoot about Russia itself.

          • Don

            If you would have first taken Syria into consideration you would have realized that the only reason why the US hasn’t consolidated it’s control over Syria is because of the Russian presense. Now you can take that thinking to the Iran situation which is even more firmly established, with no real hostilities being overtly promoted by the US.

        • Owen

          Be sure that Putin is a clever politician looking for the best benefits for his party.
          Both China and Russia are beneficial partner for Iran, not more than this. As soon as both countries find better deal on their tables, they will leave Iran
          Except Syria and Southern Lebanon , there is no supporters for Radical Islamic regime in Iran

          Unfortunately, Obama turned his face towards this regime instead of Iranian nation in 2009 ended mass execution of people in Green Movement in Iran. Shockingly, the ex-president returned huge cash to this dictatorship regime to build missile factory in Iraq

          Change of Iranian regime will bring back peace to Middle East with less terrorism for US and its allied forces

          • leila

            There are no winners with war. Obama did what he had to for the protestors in Iran. If it would have appeared that the US backs them, the government would only have jailed and killed more people. Obama had a very nuanced understanding of the country. It is unfortunate that sanctions were not lifted as promised, because of congress. This only serves to make the situation worse for everyone and get us closer to war.
            And what makes you think that changing the Iranian government would improve things? A power vacuum is much more dangerous than the status quo. The original intent of the Iranian Revolution was never even realized because the guys with the guns took over.
            I also want to add that it is sad to see people talking so casually about bombing another country. That is not normal.

          • Owen

            No matter directly / indirectly of foreign support, Iranian regime executes its nation. Execution is their policy from 1979

            I wish Obama had shown his knowledge for not returning $400 mil to such cruel regime

            Whether believing the power vacuum or not, Iranian Gov will collapse like Tehran high rises faster we expect.

            1979 was more likely a crisis changed the political power. Revolution has the concept of social improvement. And we have only seen execution, war and terrorism in Iran

            I hope all of us think about bombing in Syria, Chain murders of Iran, and lots of terrorist attack around the world supported by Sepah

          • SIU1968

            Contrary to the lies constantly spewed by the MSM, Iran is not the largest state sponsor of terrorism. It’s our good friend, Saudi Arabia. Isis, Al Queda, and all of the branch groups are Sunni and are despised by the Iranians. The only “terrorist” group supported by Iran is Hezbollah which is basically anti-Israeli and little else.

          • Owen

            If you ganna divide the terrorism support based on Islamic branch, search more on below topics.

            1- Why did Bin Ladin’s family live in Eastern of Iran (Mashhad)? We know that Vahabi is a big enemy for Shieh and Iranian dictatorship

            2- Ghods Army is the source of tension among Islamic branches and causing to develop extremism in Iraq & Syria. In fact, Iranian regime is the main reason for creation of ISIS indirectly. It follows the same policy in Bahrain, Yemen and the minor group in Saudi Arabia to scatter extremism
            Both are came from Khomeynism want to be the emperor of Middle East by neglecting great Iranians

            3- Iranian Gov have managed lots of terrorist attacks all around the world like: attack on Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires (1992), Mykonos restaurant assassinations (1992), Chain murders of Iran (1999-2001), and anyone in oppose of their ideology (eg, Mr Bakhtiyar, Chief Commander Oveisi, Farokhzad, and …

        • Don

          Well Eileen, there’s certainly no ambiguity on understanding your position. So fwiw, here’s where you go wrong to begin with.

          Trump does not want an alliance with Russia. I’m not going to debate that with you right now because you’re fixed on your opinion. A few months doen the road will tell the real story.

          I’ve mentioned the possibility that Iran isn’t attempting to procure nuclear weapons because of religious prohibitions. However, I think it’s highly likely that Iran will be able to come to terms with Russia’s installation of nukes on it’s soil. Iran would see that as the only chance of survival they have left. That is Eileen, when Trump moves toward war with Iran, which is pretty well what he has promised. He’s doing it on the pretense of needing a better deal with Iran. Iran is not going to be a part of negotiations for a better deal! And Iran has Russia’s backing to say that they won’t have to renegotiate because the deal is fine the way it is. So far also in the opinions of the other signatories too.

      • george searing

        FUCK Russia time to get rid of Iran and the russians will do nothing

  • Don

    Oh, and this is as good a place as any to say that the Kremlin has announced that no talk of lifting sanctions was discussed by Putin/Trump.

    They said that there was only talk of very, very beautiful things. LOL

    • Mork

      “And the amount of money the US spends on it’s wars isn’t on my agenda. Nor are US troops. I’m a Canadian and my purpose here is to aid the antiwar cause.” – Don, formerly known as Don G.

      So, what does this particular comment have to do with either aiding the antiwar cause or a bill allowing for a pre-emptive attack on Iran?

  • Pop_Korn

    H.J.Res.10 is a plan to start WWIII for an unattainable and unjustified goal so Congress Critters can try out their SHTF bunkers and we can seal them inside.

    • Eileen Kuch

      Think the Congress Critters will survive in their SHTF bunkers? The answer is a definite NO .. Instead, their demise will be slow and painful, through suffocation, as the electricity goes out, shutting down the ventilation systems.
      Therefore, if they have any ounce of sense at all, these Congress Critters must repeal H.J.Res.10 – the plan to start World War 3 for, as you said, an unattainable/justifiable goal so they can try out their SHTF bunkers.

      • Don

        Don’t dignify that as-hole’s comments. You’re better than that.

  • Idiotland

    Another member of what Glen Ford rightfully calls the Black Misleadership Class. I wonder if any of the anti-Trump “resistance” will notice this? Of course they won’t, he’s a black democrat.

    • Mork

      Bought and paid for like so many other politicians, no matter what race he happens to be. Jesus christ.

  • desertspeaks

    If politicians want to attack, THEN LET THE POLITICIANS ATTACK.. and ONLY the politicians! That will end war instantly because they would never put their own lives on the line for their PROFITABLE WARS! yes they invest in WAR and make TONS OF MONEY ON THE WARS THEY FOMENT!
    TO ALL POLITICIANS THAT CRAVE WAR.. F*^K YOU!

  • Steeleonsteele

    My question why would a democrat bring this bill to Congress after a democrat president gives Iran more nuclear power? Are the democrats trying to cause more trouble? The move on dot org didn’t cause enough chaos for them nor the women’s march. Division, strife, blood, is all they know.

    • Don

      Not to necessarily disagree with you, but how did the Democrat president give Iran more nulcear power?

      • Eileen Kuch

        I have the same question, Don. How did Obama give Iran more nuclear power? The deal he made with the Iranian leadership was to allow Iranian scientists to use uranium/plutonium for peaceful purposes only which, btw, they were already doing. This was the only positive action he took in his 8 years as POTUS.

        • Tom

          Except for, idk, issuing orders that saved the economy from complete collapse. But I guess it’s convenient to forget that.

        • Don

          Of course Obama didn’t give Iran more nuclear power. I guess I shouldn’t have even answered that nonsense.

          But there’s no argument that the US under Obama signed on to the deal with Iran. And there’s also no doubt that Russia and China take that deal very seriously. And so far at least, the EU signatories unhold the deal too.

          So it’s my contention that Obama has ended up empowering Russia as Iran’s protection from US led war. And I also contend that that was his main purpose. It’s ironclad assurance that Iran is now immune to US led war. We only have to pray to the dogs that Trump will understand that.

    • Mork

      “Division, strife, blood, is all they know.”
      This is because the liberal wing of the party is getting fed up with the “centrist,” aka the neoliberal/neocon wing of the party, which has the money and power in the party and is scarcely distinguishable from the neocon wing of the Republican party. Remember when the Tea Party came up on the right, because they were sick of the free-spending interventionist neocon wing of the Republican party, which was becoming scarcely distinguishable from the neolib/neocon Democrats. One difference though is that the lefties taking to the streets represent a real, organic movement, whereas the Tea Party was an astroturf movement paid for and sponsored by extremely wealthy right wingers like the Koch clan for the benefit of the extremely wealthy.

      • Tom

        What’s actually happening more than that is that we’re sick of teaparty/Trumpster bullshit and we’re starting to push back. They don’t get to live in their own reality while affecting ours. No more ‘alternative facts.’ No more gaslighting. Trump is a moron if he thinks he can get away with this for 8 years.

    • Tom

      You are truly a moron.

      • Don

        He truly is!

  • Pingback: Pre-Emptive Attack Iran Bill Active in US House – Antiwar.com (blog) | Bscs Daily()

  • The bill makes so many unsubstantiated and fact free assumptions that it leaves one wondering who authored the bill.

  • Pingback: Pre-Emptive Attack Iran Bill Active in US House – Antiwar.com Blog | ABC Featured()

  • Tom

    This is a scare tactic. You don’t declare your intention to declare war, you just declare war if you’re actually going to attack.

  • Owen

    All the World’s tensions tie with radical Islamic regime in Iran. It’s nearly 4 decades of its torture, nation execution, and scattering extremism in the World.
    Khomeynism with Ghom religious school (Hozeh Elmiyeh) have become such huge monster that Iranians cannot even change that.
    We never forget Khomeyni’s speech in France under apple tree and what he and his followers did after 1979.
    I hope all of this lead to change in returning liberty to old Persia with peace for the World

  • dassa0069

    Every country has the government it deserves.
    In a democracy people get the leaders they deserve.
    – Joseph de Maistre

  • Mykeru

    lel

  • Mykeru

    last-chance saloon for these luck-pushers, they can get fucked

  • Pingback: Pre-Emptive Attack Iran Bill Active in US House | From the Trenches World Report()

  • S.Rhee

    Strange, how many people seem to have the notion that possession of one or two nuclear weapons would make a country immune to attack. Enemies of Iran would like nothing better than that Iran had a couple of such weapons, it would give them all the justification they need to attack it.

    • Don

      No, it doesn’t work that way and there’s no evidence to show it does. On the contrary, North Korea demonstrates that it doesn’t. And the US is very, very concerned about it too!

      But more important than that is the fact that small countries become protected proxies of large nuclear armed nations.

      I contend that Israel’s nuclear weapons which are supplied by the US, are not the important consideration for their safety. Israel being a US proxy is by far.

      It appears the situation won’t be repeated in the same way with Iran and so Iran won’t magically be able to steal nuclear capability out of the ether. Iran will only become nuclear capable with Russia’s full adoption of their country as a proxy.

      • S.Rhee

        The US (as they have made clear) does not fear one or two nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran (as pointed out before, it will be used to launch an immediate attack). Why are countries like India, Pakistan, North Korea not satisfied with having one or two nuclear weapons? See Jacques Chirac’s comment (immediate detection of nuclear weapons launch) Nuclear weapons claim in the case of Iran is merely one (may be the most convincing one) of the accusations made to demonize the country.

  • Pingback: Trump NSA Adviser Flynn: “We Are Officially Putting Iran on Notice”. US Congress Bill H.J. Res. 10: Giving Trump a Frre Hand for Peemtive Attack on Iran | NEW.EURO-MED.DK()

  • Pingback: Trumps NSA- Berater Flynn: “Wir warnen Iran offiziell”. US Kongress-Gesetzentwurf H.J. Res. 10: Trump Freie Hand für Erstschlag gegen Iran zu erhalten | NEW.EURO-MED.DK()

  • Pingback: Is America Swimming or Swirling Down the Bowl? – Outlaw Patriot News()

  • george searing

    bomb the shit out of them before they get the nukes . they are crazy their religious beliefs are as insane as they are; we can;t wait Donald push the button

  • Pingback: Trumps NSA-Berater Flynn: “Wir warnen Iran offiziell”. US Kongress-Gesetzentwurf H.J. Res. 10: Trump Freie Hand für Erstschlag gegen Iran zu erhalten | Der Honigmann sagt...()

  • Mr Genuis

    this is a smart democrat. We will indeed need to do a pre emtive strike on iran before they can have a nuclear weapon. Are you crazy, these lunatics would bomb america and Israel, probably Saudi Arabia . Their capacity must be destroyed in the next couple of years before we get amother closer muslim like obama. He was terrible for foreign policy. Like an enemy of the state.

  • tom kincade

    Trump is a deal makermhe is making a deal with Putin so he can go for Iran without any problems from Russia the Russians are no lovers of Iran and will green light him the trouble is he will hit Iran so hard the whole world will be up in arms but not Russia

  • William

    The Iranian parliament is meaningless – the Iranian “Supreme Leader” can declare war at any time he wants and for any reason he finds or invents. The nature of nihilistic theocracies is utter subjugation of nonbelievers. It might be that a preemptive strike will become necessary. I would wholeheartedly support the return of Reza Pahlavi to Iran and restoration of the Peacock Throne. A secular constitutional monarchy is infinitely preferable to the current mess, and the rational portion of the Iranian population would welcome him with open arms.

  • Pingback: Pizzagate turned PedoGate Leads to Momentum Surge in Busting Global Child Sex Trafficking Rings | cathy fox blog on child abuse()

  • Tony A.

    Is not the Iranian government that the U.S. must annihilate – it’s Iran’s Shiite clerical establishment now headed by Ali Khamenei.