Iran

5 Things to Know About Congress Taking On the Iran Nuclear Deal

There are two weeks left for Congress to act if it wants to try to stop the deal.

|

State Dept.

Congress has just a little over two weeks to vote to approve or disapprove the deal struck between Iran and the P5+1, the U.S., U.K., China, Russia, France, and Germany, over Iran's nuclear activities. The deal was a result of years of negotiations, hinged on coordinated international sanctions. The U.N. Security Council has already approved it, but supporters of the deal view the Congressional vote as the most important hurdle. If Congress votes to disapprove the bill, President Obama will have 12 days to veto the Congressional action, and then Congress will have 10 days to try to override that video. As time runs out, here are some aspects of the process to keep in mind:

Congress is going through a progress Congress came up with. 

Congress passed the Iran Nuclear Review Act, sponsored by Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Bob Menendez (D-NJ), in May, and despite initial veto threats, the president signed the bill into law. The legislation set up a process for the Congress to weigh in on the Iran deal. While some opponents of negotiations with Iran insisted any agreement would be a treaty, the White House considered it an executive agreement. Such agreements have become more common in recent decades—they don't require Senate approval, but can be reversed by a future president. Many of the Republican presidential candidates have promised to do just that if elected. 

The mechanism Congress chose to express its opinion on the Iran deal is a typical one—Congress will be able to express approval or disapproval of the bill. If it disapproves, the president will be able to veto, requiring a supermajority in Congress to override. And if the Congress does nothing by September 17, the deal will be considered approved. Congress carved out a similar opportunity to vote to disapprove of raising the debt ceiling when it agreed to raise the debt ceiling in August 2011. Nothing came of a resolution of disapproval, and the debt ceiling was already lifted before hat vote. Likewise, when many members of Congress insisted they opposed President Obama's decision to enter the military into a United Nations-backed intervention in Libya's civil war, they were able to pass a weak resolution to "disapprove" of the intervention, but not a law that would defund or otherwise order the end of the intervention. 

It's OK that the United Nations approved the deal first. 

Within a week of the deal being struck between Iran, the U.S., and five other countries, the United Nations Security Council approved the deal unanimously. The five permanent members of the Security Council, the U.S., the U.K, China, Russia, and France, who all hold veto power in the body, were all part of the negotiations with Iran. While many congressional critics lambasted the Obama administration for taking the deal to the U.N. first, it wasn't the U.S.'s call to make on its own. The deal reached with Iran specified it would be sent to the U.N. first. That's not a big deal. The Security Council's approval, which relates to those parts of the nuclear deal that cover previous U.N. resolutions and U.N.-backed sanctions, doesn't effect sanctions legislation previously passed by Congress nor does it obligate Congress to approve the deal. The demand by Congressional critics that the U.N. wait was unrealistic. In the Iran Nuclear Review Act, Congress gave itself 30 days to review the deal. But if it came less than 30 days before their scheduled August recess, they would get 60 days to review, because members of Congress, apparently, didn't want to sacrifice their summer breaks to consider the deal.Not much of a sign they considered the issue pressing, and not much of a reason to ask others to delay action too. 

Congress isn't voting on the side deals but they'll affect the vote. 

Iran and the International Atomic Energy Administration (IAEA), the global agency tasked with monitoring nuclear activities around the world, entered into a number (at least two) of side deals during the broader negotiations. One of those deals reportedly gave Iran more leeway than usual over inspections related to the country's alleged past nuclear activities. Congressional critics of the Iran nuclear deal condemned that side deal, saying it was based on trust, not verification, the opposite of what the Obama administration had promised. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) suggested he would introduce legislation to defund the IAEA. That's the best Congress can do. The side deals were made between Iran and the IAEA, not the U.S., so they aren't part of what Congress is voting on. Withdrawing U.S. funding for the IAEA isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as it's a sign of disengagement from internationalist meddling rather than a move toward the U.S. trying to take unilateral responsibility in preventing nuclear proliferation. 

Plenty of Democrats oppose the Iran deal. 

Much of the focus by supporters of the Iran deal has been on the deal's Republican critics in Congress, but the reality is some Democrats oppose the Iran deal too. Sen. Bob Menendez (N.J.) has long been a critic of the Obama administration's diplomatic efforts with Iran, having previously tried to impose new sanctions on Iran while negotiations were still taking place. Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), the presumptive next Senate Minority Leader, also recently came out against the deal. Were opposition limited to Republicans, a veto override wouldn't be a real threat. Instead, hawkish posturing by Democrats makes it a distinct possibility.  

It's nothing new—despite attempts at partisan revisionism, much of the U.S.'s post-9/11 war on terror and broader foreign policy regime has been supported by Democrats as well as Republicans. The frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016, Hillary Clinton, voted for the war in Iraq and was a big advocate of the U.S. participating in the Western intervention in Libya, an intervention that induced regime change and also left a power vacuum which various radical Islamist terrorist groups have exploited. 

Even if Congress overrides the president's veto, the deal could move forward. 

If the Congress votes by September 17 to disapprove of the deal and is able to overcome the president's veto, it won't sink the deal, just those portions of it which rely on Congressional action. Sanctions imposed by others will continue to be lifted. Iran's economy will continue to open up to foreign business, just not for American entrepreneurs and companies hamstrung by U.S. policy. The IAEA will move forward with the inspections regime set out in the Iran nuclear deal and the side deals. The U.S. will still likely vote in December to approve of the report the IAEA is supposed to submit regarding Iran's past alleged nuclear weapons research. Republicans may be able to defund the IAEA, but it won't affect the IAEA's program for Iran. Rejecting the deal, withdrawing from the IAEA even, would just be rejections of multilateralism. Unfortunate, but if not coupled with an effective push for unilateral American action certainly not dangerous to anyone but the U.S. itself.

NEXT: Marco Rubio Loves Sugar Subsidies, Toy Gun Ban in Boston, Probably Some Trump News: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Unfortunate, but if not coupled with an effective push for unilateral American action certainly not dangerous to anyone but the U.S. itself.

    How would it be dangerous to the US? Oh yeah, it will give people like Ed a chance to claim the US had it coming to them and shouldn’t retaliate when the Iranians nuke us. I guess there is that.

    And if hte rest of the world wants to let Iran have nukes, I wish them luck. But that is no reason for the US to participate. I love how reason is all about isolationism except when it comes to appeasing our enemies. Then it is all about the US duty to be multilateral.

    1. He’s right that international sanctions are done.

      Are unilateral sanctions by the US a danger to the US? As in, more likely to make Iran aggressive in general or toward the US in particular?

      Hard to see how, honestly. The mullahs will barely notice unilateral sanctions, and already hate us about as much as possible. It will be, as you note, a handy pretext for their uninterrupted hostility, but I don’t count handy pretexts as actual dangers.

      1. Part of unilateral sanctions is keeping their $150bn in assets in US banks frozen. The mullahs would notice that, as would the terror groups they’ve probably already promised the money to.

        1. Good point, Mike. I was thinking trade sanctions.

    2. How would it be dangerous to the US?

      Because all the Civilized Countries will then look upon US in horror again, like in the times of…gasp…BOOOOSH! And after Obama did such a bang-up job restoring the US reputation on the cocktail circuit!

      1. I read “dangerous” in the mild sense of “pointlessly isolating ourselves from an economy that is going to grow exponentially over the next several decades.”

  2. If the Congress votes by September 17 to disapprove of the deal and is able to overcome the president’s veto, it won’t sink the deal…

    Ineffectual legislative action against the executive? That doesn’t sound like the Congress I know.

    1. Boner’s already allllll over this one. Like slime on a snail. I GOT THIS, says Boner.

    2. And this “mechanism” for approval of which they speak?

      I’m fumbling through my handy dandy pocket version of that old document referred to as The US Constitution and I can’t find that page ?

      Do I just have a bad copy ?

      Why are the pundits and pollsters scratch their collective heads over the Trump spectacle, I have their answer for them?.

      Obama and the Dims have run circles around the Rs and made them look stupid. Well maybe they didnt make them look that way but they certainly exposed their ineffectualness.

      We have had Obamacare shoved down our throats and the Rs sent to Washington in the midterms fought only to exempt themselves and left us under the bus. Nonliberals are called racists at every turn for every disagreement ( see The Tony Troll for example) . The PC leaders take the lead on every issue and the Rs in office cringe in fear of being called a racist, or insensitive by #blacklivesmatter people who are calling for “pigs in a blanket (bodybags), fry’m like bacon.( this really happened. People calling for cops in bodybags to be fried like bacon said that a Sheriff who spoke out against them was being insensitive ) WTF ? The War on WOmenz, all men are rapist, #blacklivesmatter shouting down #alllivesmatter, and the beat goes on.

      1. I apologize for the stream of consiousness grammer, spelling , and typing but It just awes me the way society is headed. I wrote an email to a R Senator asking him why he was kissing up to some Dem activist people who were ataccking Rand Paul because none of the asses he was kissing would ever vote for him for anything. Never no way would they elect him dog shit picker upper and he was trying to kiss up to them like Jeb Bush does with his act of love foot in mouth comment. They ain’t voting for you Jeb! nothing you can say or do will ever get not a one of them to vote for you for dog catcher quit kissing their asses.

      2. This silly argument again? It’s an executive agreement, not binding on future executives, and thus is not subject to the treaty clause in the Constitution. Were it not for the legislation requiring Congressional approval, Obama could run and hide like he does with all his executive orders.

  3. Doesn’t matter one goddamned bit what anyone thinks of this other than those shitheads in Congress. They’ll either vote it up or down – not a fucking thing anyone can do about it either way.

    I hope the sun keeps rising and setting and the wind keeps blowing and that no one goes too stupid on either side of this and….NUKE someone or something.

    We’ll see.

    1. And if they vote it down, does anyone think that will make the slightest difference?

      They gave this craven naif of a President miles of rope. Its too late for backsies now.

      1. At this point the deal in the UN has already given Russia cover to sell Iran all kinds of nice rockets. So that horse has left the barn. The open question is still when they’ll have a small enough nuke and a big enough rocket to make something far away vaporize.

        1. Because that’s the plan right? I mean, they’re just sitting around in Tehran right now staring impatiently at the clock wondering when they can start nuking cities because that’s the first step to their long term plan of something something something global caliphate?

          1. Credible. Threat.

            That’s all they need, Hugh, and you know that. Don’t need to be anywhere NEAR cray enough to use it. Just have the warhead and delivery system.

            All the sudden, they’re EF Hutton*, and everyone’s listening when they talk.

            *don’t even TRY to tell us you’re too young to remember that reference

            1. The Pakistanis already have nukes and they’re about has dysfunctional and crazy as it gets.

              It’s not really about using a nuke; it’s about regional stability and their ability to project power in the form of a nuclear threat (mostly to Saudi and Israel).

              1. This whole process is just Obama telling the Saudis and Israelis that Iran is now their problem. That may or may not lead to a more peaceful world. And it may or may not lead to less American involvement in the ME. We’ll see.

                1. “That may or may not lead to a more peaceful world. And it may or may not lead to less American involvement in the ME”

                  In the long run, it will lead to both, without doubt. What happens on the way is less certain territory. Iranian hegemony in the ME is all but inevitable in the long term, as it has been the historic norm for thousands of years. It’s just a matter of how we navigate ourselves on the way there.

                  1. ranian hegemony in the ME is all but inevitable in the long term, as it has been the historic norm for thousands of years.

                    What? The Arabs obliterated the Persian Empire in the 700s AD, followed by the Turks and then the British. Before that Byzantium and Rome before it controlled much of the ME. Iran/Persia hasn’t had hegemony since the events of the Book of Daniel.

                2. This whole process is just Obama telling the Saudis and Israelis that Iran is now their problem.

                  Except for the part where we have to defend Iran from air strikes against suspected nuclear weapons facilities… I wonder whose air strikes those would be? Djibouti’s maybe?

              2. Right, like I said – EF Hutton

                1. I never listen when that guy talks.

              3. “The Pakistanis already have nukes and they’re about has dysfunctional and crazy as it gets.”

                ^^ This. If they haven’t nuked anyone yet, there’s really no reason to be concerned about Iran.

                1. The concern is not that they’ll use the nukes (though there’s always that possibility, with probability France + England, probability ~ NorK).

                2. It’s their nukes that allow the pakistanis to get away with so much bullshit in Afghanistan.

                  You think Iran has been strident in Iraq till now? Just wait until they get nukes.

          2. I thought the plan was to become the ayatollah of rock-n-rolla, Hugh. Isn’t that everybody’s plan?

          3. They don’t have nukes yet so no, they aren’t watching the clock, they’re taking the steps necessary to get nukes. #1 being get the sanctions lifted by an idiot narcissist who the great satan was foolish enough to put in power.

    2. And the fish keep biting .

      Thanks

  4. I was skeptical of the deal, but when I learned that Iran would be able to inspect itself and the IAEA would accept Iran’s pinky swear that everything was A-OK, my concerns were put to rest.

    1. Exactly! I mean, what’s the worst that could happen?

      1. I dunno. We could go fight a war for Israeli foreign policy?

        1. ANTI-SEMITE!!!!!!

          //there, did it for you

  5. so which way will the Doomsday Clock boys move the hands?

    1. jazz hands?

      #justaguess

  6. Can’t we just nuke Israel and/or Iran and resolve this now? You know that’ll be the ultimate result of this.

    1. I say let’s take off and nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure…

      1. Damn, haven’t see that one in awhile. Thanks for the reminder re-watch soon…

    2. I think you just came up with a great reason to invent a cosmic doomsday device, since the destruction of the universe is the ultimate result anyway.

      Personally, I think the heat death of the universe sounds depressing. I vote we skip the rest of existence and bring on the destruction of the universe as soon as possible.

      It’s starting to feel like reruns anyway. Conflict in the Middle East, licentious famous people, outraged moral traditionalists, different ways to bread food – it’s all been done. Though I will miss seeing the ever-more-innovative ways to incorporate cheese into other foods and activities. I think if we deign to let existence continue, eventually our clothes will be made of delicate gruyere-based linens.

      1. That sounds delicious! Though I would also accept mozzarella-based stretch pants.

  7. Congress is going through a progress Congress came up with

    And here I thought Congress was the opposite of progress.

    1. It still is.

  8. Treaties and Congressional approval are so out of fashion.

  9. But if it came less than 30 days before their scheduled August recess, they would get 60 days to review, because members of Congress, apparently, didn’t want to sacrifice their summer breaks to consider the deal.

    This in a nutshell encapsulates American government.

    1. Congress should meet only in the summer in DC without AC. I know a few might expire from heat stoke, but that’s a price I’m willing to pay.

      1. God, you are indeed selfless, Drake.

        I concur with your suggestion utterly.

        1. I am a giver.

      2. That’s a feature, not a bug.

    2. The purpose of that “summer break” is to go back and talk to their constituents. Would libertarians prefer to have the country ruled by a legislature that spends 365 days a year in DC?

      1. Could we wall it off and post guards to keep them in?

  10. I heard the other day about a former Marine being held in Iran for “espionage”. Apparently Kerry “raised the issue” during the negotiations.

    How his freedom couldn’t have been a part of the deal is beyond me. And he isn’t the only American being held.

    I’m not expressing disapproval or approval of the deal. I just cannot believe that the freedom of American citizens unjustly detained by Iran was not a foundational part of any deal from day one.

    1. I know. Such negotiating prowess we have on our side.

      And have you heard the latest supposed reason to support the deal? Because if it fails, it will empower the Iranian “extremists”! You know, the crazies who now have no power in Iran at all. It doesn’t seem to occur to anyone that Iran is running a Good Cop/Bad Cop routine on the rest of the world.

      1. I suppose good cop/bad cop is better than the US recent policy of psychopath cop/ennui cop.

        1. Except that the bad Iranian cop is worse than the US psychopath cop.

          1. Only if they follow through on what are mostly obvious bluffs. A nuke on Tel Aviv could earn a dozen over Tehran. Which means technically the US is trading nuclear threats with Iran, except the US threat has more credibility because it’s capable of it now, not in a few years.

            The US is totally willing to go through with raining fire onto Muslim regions, then sort of drifting away in a lackluster withdrawal. Which is sort of like if a serial killer kidnapped and tortured somebody, then got bored and let them escape. Psycho ennui.

            But if we’re doing a direct comparison, rather than me making sarcastic comments, then the US also has a good cop/bad cop strategy, since the consensus for years has been to negotiate now but reserve the military option. Obama and Bush both explicitly reserved the military option specifically to force Iran to negotiate. And at the same time, vocal Republicans have called for strikes without further negotiations. So in a sense it’s somewhat parallel, except that the US threat could actually happen and the Iranian threat is somewhat hollow for now.

      2. “Such negotiating prowess we have on our side.”

        There seems to be a consistent tendency here to see the other parties to the negotiations as so many Pips to Obama’s Gladys Knight.

        The way this has shaken out, it’s fairly clear that, like the coalition against Da’esh/IS, the US is scrambling to look like the main participant in a process that is going to happen whether the US is involved or not.

        Looking involved is crucial to continuing what’s left of US global hegemony, but that tide is on the ebb.

      3. That’s why we need The Donald to make our deals going FORWARD !

    2. Well, the terrible and miserable fate of rotting away in an Iranian prison aside, I’m not sure it’s appropriate to address a bilateral issue like that in a multilateral negotiation. Is the EU supposed to scuttle a deal and accept an Iranian nuclear program so the US can make a symbolic point about the fate of four imprisoned Americans?

      It may make more pragmatic sense to delay and move that issue to after a deal succeeds (or fails). It’s likely that the US had little bargaining power left anyway. That’s just a guess. But politically they wouldn’t have been able to just offer cash for release, the sanctions are already slowly lifting, and they wouldn’t have been able to make the inspections any weaker and still get the deal passed. The deal as it stands is already getting a majority of Senators opposed, so a deal any more generous (with fewer sanctions, fewer inspections, or both) would not be more popular.

      Conversely, to argue with myself, maybe a way more generous deal that also secured the release of the Americans (maybe by offering a faster timetable to lift sanctions or maybe some circuitous cash transfers) would’ve made it harder for Senators to oppose. But I tend to think the “no Americans left behind” argument is often made by politicians who oppose the deal on its own terms anyway.

      1. Well, the terrible and miserable fate of rotting away in an Iranian prison aside, I’m not sure it’s appropriate to address a bilateral issue like that in a multilateral negotiation.

        Oh, fer fuck’s sake. Multilateral negotiations are just bundles of bilateral issues.

        A decent negotiator would have done something like “There’s a lot of bad blood between us. Why don’t we kick things off with a show of good faith? You let these Americans go, and we’ll do X for you. No commitment, no strings attached, just as a sign of good faith. You want to negotiate in good faith, right?”

        1. Multilateral negotiations are best when all the interests are aligned. Although I’m sure the European partners would like the Americans released if it required nothing at all of them, I don’t think they are exactly aligned. Distracting from an issue where, in principle, all the parties care, to an issue where only two parties care, is going to a weaker place.

          I’m not sure your “good faith” tack would be very persuasive. So Iran should do it for free and hope it generates some unverifiable goodwill or positive vibes? That’s not negotiating, that’s basically just requesting. At what point does the requesting turn into either begging or dropping the issue?

          Sure, it’d be nice if they let them go. But I don’t think Iran does things because America likes it. In fact, in certain situations, they probably do things specifically because America dislikes it – and the opposite is in a certain sense true of the US, too.

          1. He didn’t say that Iran should let the go for free. You are arguing agsinst a strawman.

            The poster you are building a strawan argument against said, “You let these Americans go, and we’ll do X for you.”.

            That is not “free” as you claimed in your strawman.

            Did you just skip that part of forget it in you reply ?

          2. Multilateral negotiations are best when all the interests are aligned.

            Which they never are. They generally require as much negotiating amongst the “partners” on one side of the table as they do with the “opponent” on the other side.

            So Iran should do it for free and hope it generates some unverifiable goodwill or positive vibes?

            Did you miss the part where I said “and we’ll do X for you.”?

            I would set this up as, essentially, a precondition, or practice, perhaps, for the main event.

    3. How his freedom couldn’t have been a part of the deal is beyond me. And he isn’t the only American being held.

      They’re not TOP. MEN. (or not close enough anyway) so they don’t matter.

  11. Homeland spoiler alert, but isn’t the Iran deal basically the thing that happened at the end of Homeland season 3?

    I don’t get why anybody really thought there’d be a better deal than dropping sanctions in exchange for inspections. I’m assuming that some of it is signaling to look tough on Iran and some of it is from people who won’t accept anything but regime change.

    1. I don’t get why anybody really thought there’d be a better deal than dropping sanctions in exchange for inspections.

      Maybe not. But we didn’t even get inspections.

      1. “We” weren’t really part of the inspections negotiations. As the article stated, that part of the deal was made between IAEA and Iran directly. Congress can veto the deal, and that will make no difference on the inspection regime whatsoever.

      2. What do you wish the inspections looked like if not the way IAEA wants to do them?

        1. Well, we don’t really know what the IAEA’s side deal with Iran consists of, beyond letting Iran “inspect” some of their own sites.

          From what I have seen, the “inspection” regime in this deal is farcical.

  12. I support the deal. I await your woodchipper.

  13. OT:

    Binschus was a long-time donor to the organization formerly known as the Puget Sound Blood Center before her transition and before becoming an employee. Her attorney says she was accused of falsifying her donor record after the organization changed its policy on gender identification.

    Attorney Jillian T. Weiss says being fired because you say you are a woman and your employer doesn’t agree is a violation of state and federal law.

    http://www.nbcrightnow.com/sto…..nder-woman

  14. Isn’t the real problem with this deal the fact that the President doesn’t feel he needs the representatives of The People because, and I quote “No one passes treaties anymore”?

    1. No – the real problem, as the article argues, is that it will go forward with or without US approval.

      1. Just like Obama goes forward without U.S. approval. Check.

  15. So which one of you passed yourself off as an Australian and impregnated the French chick?

    1. Well, she is a cutie, but I have a feeling that trying to find a guy who you had a one-night fling with to tell him you’re pregnant and the baby is his is…going to be, shall we say, unfruitful.

      1. It’s probably Paul Hogan. Even if it’s not, I say we start filming Crocodile Dundee in the French Abortion Clinic right now.

        1. Possibly, it’s Hugh Jackman.

          1. Bryan Brown’s too old, innee?

            1. Yes, unless he wears boxers, then he’s probably still able.

        2. It’s high time we had Crocodile Dundee 4! Not that I’ve seen the third one. Did anyone see the third one? Like, at all?

          1. It would make a great romantic comedy though. A stubbly rougish Aussie shares a night of no-strings passion with a lonely French ingenue who leaves for home the next day.

            When she finds out shes pregnant she makes a Youtube video to find and inform the father. Improbably he sees the video and is so moved by her heartfelt plea to rekindle that brief connection that he resolves to give up his vagabond life as a surf bum and make his way to France to find his love and be the man she deserves.

            After an epic and comic journey from Adelaide, he finally manages to track her down in Paris, where she has become a national sensation. Not knowing the language, he shows her picture around town and is pointed in the right direction by a kindly old couple who have followed her story with great interest. He runs down the Left Bank to catch her as it starts to rain he finally spots those dark twinkling eyes. He pushes his way through the crowd and finally sees her again face to face after so many weeks and so many miles–walking gingerly out the front door of the local abortion clinic.

            1. I’d watch it.

            2. I’d be there on Saturday, once the word got out.

            3. Love the twist ending.

  16. “The Security Council’s approval, which relates to those parts of the nuclear deal that cover previous U.N. resolutions and U.N.-backed sanctions, doesn’t effect sanctions legislation previously passed by Congress nor does it obligate Congress to approve the deal.”

    Well, it’s true that it doesn’t “obligate Congress to approve the deal.”

    But it does establish that Congress has ALREADY APPROVED the deal.

    The US Senate ratified the UN Charter in 1945. The UN Charter requires signatory states to conform to Chapter 7 resolultions of the UN Security Council. The Iran deal was approved by the UN Security Council as a Chapter 7 resolution. QED the US is bound to the deal by its own US Senate ratification of a treaty 70 years ago.

    1. Assuming you’re talking about Article 48 of the charter, that’s not how it works. The resolution removed Iran from Chapter 7 sanctions; that does not mean member nations can’t continue their own sanctions.

      1. Damn you and your facts, Mike!

        This is H & R! We don’t need no steenkin’ facts! We have snark. And feelz.

  17. If Congress speaks in a desert, and there is no mullah to hear them, do they really make a sound?

  18. I dont think Jack Framp is going to liek that at all dude.

    http://www.Total-Privacy.tk

  19. Holy fuck, where’s the copy editor?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.