Monthly Archives: April 2017

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S FIRST 100 DAYS

Every time a new President of the United States takes office, the opposition party and the media always talk about his first 100 days. I don’t remember how the “first 100 days” began, nor do I remember much about the Obama, Bush II, or Clinton 100 days, much less Carter, Reagan, of Bush 1 first 100 days. I think it’s a little silly, since we elect a United States President for a four-year period as opposed to a 100 day period. Because it appears that I’m the only one who doesn’t take this first 100 days garbage seriously, I feel, nonetheless, obligated to write a synopsis of President Donald Trump’s first 100 days.

This information presented in this article is attributable to Dick Morris, an American political author and commentator, who previously worked as a pollster, political campaign consultant, and general political consultant. He was a friend and advisor to former President Bill Clinton during his time as Governor of Arkansas and after Clinton was elected to the White House.

According to Dick Morris, President Trump has done a lot, but not enough to turn the whole world around in Trump’s first 100 days.

Morris goes on to indicate that the impact of Donald Trump in Washington will encourage job growth, entrepreneurship, and the performance of border patrols and our nation’s police forces. Entrepreneurs are now encouraged to take risks as they wouldn’t do under the Obama presidency, making the Trump presidency already so much different than that of Obama.

For starters, the Dow is up by 3,000 points, the NASDAQ is up by 1,000 points. Under President Trump, job growth is 30% more than it was in Obama’s last three months. Illegal border crossings are down by 71%, existing home sales are up 4%, and consumer confidence is the highest it has been since 2000, and the trade deficit is down by 10%. Furthermore, the barometer of economic growth is the highest that it’s been since November when Trump was first elected.

One of Trump’s biggest success of his first 100 days, was the nomination and affirmation of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. All indications are that Justice Gorsuch will be a justice that will interpret the law instead of legislating from the bench according to his political views. With respect to the U.S. Constitution, he is an originalist who will interpret the constitution as our founding father’s intended it to be interpreted, not as a living document.

With respect to environment issues, President Trump has reversed the Obama decision, and approved for construction, the Keystone Pipeline. The Obama regulations on power plants have been reversed, and fuel emission standards have been rolled back. By reversing Obama’s “Clean Power Plan,” which gave the already too powerful EPA jurisdiction over every small stream in America, we can be assured that the heinous anti-American/anti-freedom actions that Obama espoused will come to an end.

As indicated above, illegal border crossings are down by 71%, and 5000 new border patrol agents have been hired.  There have been big cuts in the number of H15 visas issues and refugees from countries who sponsor terrorism are no longer being admitted to the United States.

During his presidency, Obama had set up a series of consent decrees suing police departments, ordering them to get rid of “stop and frisk,” and halt searching for guns. President Trump has now reversed these consent decrees, taking the handcuffs off policemen and allowing policemen to handcuff criminals instead. In addition, he is opening a new study on how to best save police lives.

He is ending federal funding for sanctuary cities and has put in place a new executive order which indicates that for each new regulation adopted by the administration, at least two regulations already on the books must be eliminated.

President Trump’s launching of a study on opioid abuse is the first of its kind instituted by any sitting President of the United States.

In 1993, after he took office, President Clinton put in place a five-year band on lobbying for folks that left the executive branch of government. The five-year ban remained in place during his presidency until December 2009 when Clinton revoked the order. This meant that top subordinates, those currently in government and those who have left could start lobbying their former agencies after one year from their last day on the job. The one year ban is contained in a 1978 law that is still in force, according to the Washington post in an article by John Mintz, dated December 20, 2000. President Trump has now re-instated that ban and a ban that would ban lobbying a foreign government forever.

Asking liberals and the mainstream media about President Trump’s accomplishments will get you nothing but lies. They will state that all the president has done is vacation at his Mar-a-Lago resort in South Florida and play golf. Remember liberals couldn’t tell the truth if their lives depended on it.

Liberals and the media, both left-leaning and right-leaning, have weighed in on the failures of Congress to pass legislation repealing and replacing Obamacare, to pass a meaningful tax reform measure, and to build a wall on the Mexican border to put an end to illegal through our southern border.

Once sweeping legislation like Obamacare has been passed, it’s difficult, if not impossible, to roll back. Thus, the repeal and replacement of Obamacare has to be done right, and the transition must be smooth. I want it done right, and I think everyone else does also, so let’s do it right even if it takes a little longer. I feel the same way about tax reform.

The accomplishments of President Trump in the first 100 days of his presidency are substantial and more than many presidents have done in their first 100 days. Remember, we elect a president for a four-year term not a 100-day term. Think we can get liberals to understand that concept?

Facebooktwitter

LIBERAL HATE TAKES PRECEDENCE

On April 17, 2017, liberal New York Times columnist, Alan Rappeport, wrote an article entitled,Trump’s Unreleased Taxes Threaten Yet Another Campaign Promise. The following is a critique of portions of that article where I illustrate how liberals are so consumed with hatred for Donald Trump, his family, his administration, and his supporters that their hate takes precedence over everything else in their universe.

Mr. Rappeport writes that President Trump’s promise to enact a sweeping overhaul of the tax code is in serious jeopardy nearly 100 days into his tenure, and his refusal to release his tax returns is emerging as a central hurdle to another faltering campaign promise.

The president’s press secretary, Sean Spicer, has indicated that Mr. Trump has no intentions of releasing his tax returns to the public. While I am certainly aware that it has been custom and practice for presidents to make their tax returns available to the public, it is not a constitutional requirement that presidents or presidential candidates do so. This is something that liberals cannot seem to comprehend. Moreover, since they cannot seem to distinguish between an actual requirement and something that is done out of courtesy, I have my doubts that any liberal is capable of reviewing a tax return and understanding it.

Because the president is not releasing his tax returns, Democrats are uniting around a pledge not to cooperate on any rewriting of the tax code unless they know specifically how that revision would benefit the president and his family.
Senate Minority Leader, Chucky Schumer, has pointed out that the president has significant conflicts of interest on issues such as taxation of the real estate industry and the elimination of the estate tax. It’s in his own self-interest, says Schumer.

According to Rappeport, more than 100,000 of Trump’s critics took to the streets over the weekend before the deadline to file tax returns and pay taxes, demanding that the president’s tax returns be released. The protesters say that tax legislation could be a plot by Donald Trump to get even richer.

Ezra Levin, a member of the Tax March executive committee, whatever that is, has questioned…”When they talk about tax reform, are they talking about cutting Donald Trump’s taxes by millions of dollars a year?”

Mr. Rappeport, in his article, states that lawmakers to want to pass an overhaul of the tax code that unwittingly enriches the commander and chief and his progeny.

This article informs me that Democrats will be against any sort of tax reform/tax cutting that would benefit the president and his family. It does not matter how much the new tax reform policies might help everyday Americans such as you and me, including middle-class Democrats. It’s obvious that in the eye of liberals, hate takes precedence over anything that might be good for this country or for individual Americans.

The above illustrates overwhelming, beyond the pale hate by liberals/Democrats/progressives or whatever they want to call themselves toward Donald Trump, his family, his administration, and his supporters. Rappeport indicates that Republicans are arguing that Democrats are putting politics ahead of an opportunity to fix a broken tax system. I think that Republicans should shout from the highest mountains that Democrats are so full of hate for anyone who does not toe their line that they are willing to deep-six the needs of the American people because of their deranged, sick hatred.

I want meaningful tax reform, particularly in the area of capital gains taxes. I would also like to see the corporate tax rate cut so that the nation’s businesses can expand and create more jobs. Again, liberals say that they will fight any tax reform measure that would benefit Donald Trump. Their hate takes precedence over everything else.

Well, I don’t care if Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Chucky Schumer, Bill and Hillary Clinton, the Kennedy’s, etc. benefit from tax reform, I just want to benefit from tax reform, and I want the American people, those who pay taxes, to benefit from tax reform.

Because of the seething hate that’s in their hearts for Donald Trump, his family, his administration, and his supporters, liberals will cut off their noses to spite their faces. Just when I think liberals cannot get any more dangerous, they do.

Facebooktwitter

MORE LIBERAL HATE – THE WHITE HOUSE EASTER EGG ROLL

The annual White House Easter Egg Roll is an event that has taken place either on Easter Sunday or the following Monday. Traditionally, it is planned by the current first lady and her staff. From the believable accounts that I have read regarding this year’s event, it was a success.

However, leave it to the liberals and their absolute hatred toward President Donald Trump to pick apart every little detail of this historic event.

Planning the Easter Egg Roll generally falls to the first lady and the East Wing of the White House. Of course, liberals did not waste any time disparaging the new administration regarding the planning and organizing.

The first thing we heard from the left in their quest to trash the current administration, was that the wooden egg manufacturer, Maine’s Wells Wood Turning, had to gently remind the White House that the deadline for ordering the eggs was approaching. From what I could piece together, the company, Wells Wood Turning send a tweet asking the first lady and the administration to please reach out. Duh! If you are trying to get in touch with someone and it is an emergency, you do not exclusively use Twitter; you utilize all forms of communication including pre-historic methods such as telephone calls and emails. You can also resort to Facebook messages, texting, and finally Twitter. The fact that Twitter may have been used exclusively is suspect. Was this Maine company actually making an effort to get in touch with the administration, particularly, the East Wing?

Next, the liberals just had to make something out of Melanie nudging the President, prompting him to place his right hand over his heart when the national anthem was played. What woman has not had to prompt her man to do something he should be doing? I thought it was funny. This little incident brought back a memory when Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper were attending some event. Al Gore, along with a couple of other folks were recognized. The Vice President started clapping, but Tipper whispered to him, “You’re not supposed to clap for yourself.” I thought this was hilarious, and feel the same way about Melania having to nudge the president to put his hand over his heart. However, the liberals, with their out of control hatred for Donald Trump, his family, his administration, and his supporters, spent much time exacerbating this incident to the point of ridiculousness.

Then we have the incident where it has been alleged by the ‘capable of nothing but sheer hatred’ liberals, that the president signed a “Make American Great Again” baseball cap passed to him by a young boy wanting the president’s autograph. Supposedly, president tossed it into the crowd, instead of handing it to the boy. I read one account from British media that the young man requesting the autograph did catch the cap. I then read about other incidents where the president signed caps and tossed them into the crowd instead of passing them to the original owners. I have not been able to get much information on this except from the far-left smear merchant websites. Perhaps the right-leaning websites considered it too unimportant to write about.
Why this may have happened, I do not know. I am not a popular person. In fact, I am not very well liked by many individuals in and around the Birmingham, Alabama and central Alabama areas. While this area is one of the biggest conservative strong-holds in the nation, we do have liberals. And because they are in the minority, they have extra hate in their hearts. So, I do not know and will probably ever know what it feels like to have a multitude of folks vying for my autograph. Would I get confused if that ever happened to me? I don’t know. The far-left smear merchant websites even some of the left-leaning MSM sites wrote their articles indicating that Donald Trump knew exactly what he was doing and was intentionally doing it to intentionally bully the young boy.

When you think about it, it just doesn’t sound right. In fact, I would not even accuse Barack Obama of doing something like that. Yes, Barack Obama hated the United States of America and had as his goal to destroy this country, I think with children, he would not have done something like this.

The next thing the liberals brought out regarding the Easter Egg Roll was that there were an overwhelming number of white children attending. Liberals were indicating that children attending the Washington D.C. public schools, where the majority of the students are black weren’t invited to the Egg Roll. Even some teachers in the D.C. public schools went on record as saying their classes were not invited.

After doing a little investigating, I found out that invitation to D.C. public school students is done by lottery. Now that this year’s Egg Roll is over, the White House website has loaded a page where groups or individuals can sign up for the lottery. While the date for the 2018 Egg Roll has not been announced, instructions for entering the lottery were given. The web page further indicated that Easter Egg Roll tickets were free and were made available via an online lottery March 15 – 18. Easter Egg Roll Lottery (2018 dates not announced yet). I also found an article on the Washington Post website dated March 15, apparently 2017, indicating that “the online lottery for the popular White House Easter Egg Roll opens Wednesday. White House Easter Egg Roll lottery opens today.

I was also able to find an article from dcpcsb.org indicating that the President and First Lady Michelle Obama have invited 250 students from D.C. charter schools to attend this year’s White House Easter Egg Roll on April 25. The article went on to indicate that the C.D. Public Charter School Board recommended the schools based on their progress in increasing student achievement and incorporating programs that promote health and wellness. Five D.C. Charter Schools Invited to the White House Easter Egg Roll.

With this article, I have haven’t connected all the dots, but it looks as though liberals are doing what they said they would do after the object of their worship lost the presidential election…fight President Donald Trump tooth and nail on anything his administration attempts to accomplish, even to the detriment of the well-being of the United States of America and the American people. In other words, the liberals do not care if they damage this country or hurt their fellow Americans, it is all about hate and destroying those who do not agree with them and refuse to toe the liberal line.

It pays to do a little investigating, doesn’t it?

Facebooktwitter

BACK TO MISOGYNY

My article for this blog, dated 4/10/2017, was entitled, “Back to Racism.” The article outlined another article written by Mehdi Hasan for theintercept.com, entitled, Top Democrats are Wrong: Trump Supporters were more Motivated by Racism than Economic issues. See my article, Back to Racism, April 10, 2017.

Dated April 11, 2017, in an article entitled, Bozell & Graham Column: Hillary Blames Self-Hating Women for her Loss, from newsbusters.org, Brent Bozell and Tim Graham (no relation, to my knowledge) review who Hillary Clinton is holding responsible for her loss in the 2016 presidential election.

According to Bozell and Graham, Hillary Clinton granted her first interview since losing the election on April 6, 2017. The interview took place at the “Women in the World” conference, organized by leftist editor Tina Brown. When the former Secretary of State was introduced by comedian, Samantha Bee, on cue, Ms. Bee genuflected, “You deserve to hear it 100 times, it should have been you.”

Bozell and Graham went on to indicated that the assignment to interview Mrs. Clinton fell to New York Times columnist, Nicholas Kristof. He later wrote a column on his Hillary chat, beginning in the most wrenching, humiliating way possible, Hillary Clinton has been liberated. She is now out of the woods again and speaking her mind.

In fact, the entire leftist population should be humiliated that Hillary, the anointed one, as told to us by the press, lost to Donald Trump, an unenlightened oaf. Mrs. Clinton was one of the most qualified candidates to be president as this nation has ever had.

The feminists at this conference and I would suspect that all of the conference attendees would call themselves feminists, reallywant to know why Americans hate women so deeply, and what is wrong with those self-hating white Republican women.

One of the questions Kristof lobbed at Clinton went like this: “This is a women’s empowerment conference, so I have to ask. Fundamentally, a man who bragged about sexual assault won the election, and with 53 percent of the white women’s vote. How is that, in the 21st century, what does it say about the challenges that one faces in women’s empowerment, that in effect, misogyny won with a lot of women voters?

According to the Newsbusters’ article, Hillary loved this softball question and replied, “Certainly, misogyny played a role. This just has to be admitted.” She and Kristof mulled over what he called “abundant social science research” that we admire men for being ambitious and successful, but find women “less likeable” when they are powerful.

Bozell and Graham state that it has been five months since the election, and the best analysis these people can muster sounds exactly the last weekend of the campaign when Barack Obama told the American people, “Don’t be a sexist. I want you to think about it because she is so much better qualified than the other guy. She has conducted herself so much better in public life than the other guy.”

It is certain no conversation took place between Kristof and the former presidential candidate regarding her husband, the former President of the United States, Bill Clinton’s “targeting of women.” Hillary never allows an interviewer to ask her about her role leading the “Bimbo-Bashing Patrol” to destroy the reputations of her husband’s victims.

Back to what Kristof calls, “abundant social science research.” So, ambitious and successful women are less likeable than their male counterparts? That may have been true in the mid-1970s when it was just becoming fashionable for women to seek careers in what were previously considered “male-only” or “almost male-only” fields. Women often had to take on a more “hardened” facade to get attention and convince her bosses and colleagues that she was indeed worthy of the position.

Fast-forward to the last half of the second decade of the twenty-first century. The hurdles are cleared, the mountains are reduced to rolling hills, the awkwardness has been worked through. Yes, there are still incidents of inequity, but as things have certainly improved since the mid-1970s, they will continue to improve. Nothing is ever going to be perfect, though, until Jesus returns to earth and sets up his 1000-year kingdom.

When women began making headway in the workplace, older male baby boomers, male pre-baby boomers, and World War II generation males still mostly dominated. Many of these men did have a hard time accepting women. They began their careers in male-dominated environments and then suddenly there’s an influx of women, and minorities also. They assumed they would never have to complete with anyone except white males. Many were resentful and were difficult on the women, and the minorities.

Many of those white males are now dead, and the older baby boomers are retiring. In a few years, there will be very few of these men in the workforce. The men who remain will all have begun their careers working with and competing with women. The same is true about minorities. Your forty-five-year-old middle management guy entered the workforce the early to mid-1990s. Sandra Day O’Connor was a Supreme Court Justice, Geraldine Ferraro  made an unsuccessful run for Vice President on the ticket with Walter Mondale, Madeline Albright was Secretary of State, Carol Mosely Braun, a black woman, was elected Senator from Illinois, Jeanne Kirkpatrick was the USA’s Ambassador to the United Nations, and Madeline Albright was the USA’s Ambassador to the United Nations and became Secretary of State in 1997.

I am not buying what Hillary and Kristof are pushing. I will never believe it was misogyny that resulted in Hillary Clinton, the first female nominated by a major political party for president of the United States, losing her bid. Stances on the issues played a major part. While a majority of Americans liked former President, Barack Obama, they did not like the direction in which the country was moving and were not onboard with many of his policies, plus Obama’s economy remained sluggish throughout his presidency. Also, Republican candidate, Donald Trump, a pure businessman, saw regions in traditionally Democrat states where there was substantial dissatisfaction among workers, many of which had lost their jobs after the 2008 crash and were struggling to find work. Candidate Trump went after these voters and convinced them to cast their ballots for him, and they did.

Clinton supporters and still whining about her lost and can’t come to terms with it five months after the election. They’re to be pitied.

Facebooktwitter

BACK TO RACISM

President Donald Trump was elected President of the United States five months ago. He was inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States two and a half months ago. Yet, Democrats still can’t decide why their candidate, Hillary Roddam Clinton, wife of former president, beloved by all Democrats, Bill Clinton, lost.

During the presidential campaign, we heard all sorts of allegations of sexism, or the trendier term, misogyny, against those who did not support the Democrat nominee. Of course, for the eight previous years of Obama, we heard nothing but racism allegations against those who were not supportive of the 44th President of the United States. So, first it is racism for which the right is guilty, then enters candidate Clinton, and it is sexism for which the right is guilty.

I have said this before, and I will say it again. Does anybody focus on issues? It is evident that the Democrats are not focused on issues. Some of them do have enough smarts to know they cannot win on issues, but the rest of the Democrats are too ignorant to focus on the issues. So, there we go. I have called Democrats ignorant, and I am not taking it back. They are ignorant. Notice, I said ignorant, not stupid. If you do not know the difference, look it up in Webster’s.

An article came across my news feed from theintercept.com, a website with which I was not familiar, entitled: Top Democrats are Wrong: Trump Supporters were more Motivated by Racism than Economic Issues. Truth be known, I was not aware that Democrats were even entertaining the idea that their beloved Hillary Clinton lost the President election except for us racist, sexist Republicans.

According to the author of the article, Mehdi Hasan, Bernie Sanders, de facto leader of the Resistance stated, “Some people think that those who voted for Trump are racists, sexists, homophobes and deplorable folks.”

This statement was made at a rally in Boston, alongside socialist/communist Senator, Elizabeth Warren. Can’t believe that Fauxkahontas was silent on this one. Mr. Hasan does not agree with Senators Sanders and Fauxkahontas, I mean Warren. Hasan further indicates that, in the New York Times, three days after the November election, the Vermont Senator claimed that Trump voters were “expressing their fierce opposition to an economic and political system that puts wealthy and corporate interests over their own.”

Mr. Hasan feels that both Sanders and Fauxkahontas, I mean Warren, seem much keener to lay the blame at the feet of the dysfunctional Democratic Party and an ailing economy than at the feet of racist Republican voters. Hasan goes on to state that their deflection is not surprising, nor is their coddling of those who happily embraced an openly xenophobic candidate.

In his article, Hasan says that “He gets it,” and agrees that it is hard to accept that millions of their fellow citizens harbor what political scientists have identified as “racial resentment.” (I have not heard that term before.) He further acknowledges that the reluctance to admit that bigotry, and tolerance of bigotry, is still widespread in society is understandable. Hasan then asks the question, why would senior members of the Democratic leadership want to alienate millions of voters by dismissing them as racist bigots?

What did I get from the above? Some Democrats may be willing to justify Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump because Democrats are out of touch with middle-class America. With respect to the issues, including the economy, foreign policy, immigration, energy, the environment, and health care, Democrats are diametrically opposite to mainstream America, also known as the fly-over country. However, that is a mighty big but, other Democrats are continuing to hurl accusations of racism, sexism, and whatever else they can throw at those who disagree with them.

I was one of the first pundits to label Democrats/ liberals/progressives or whatever they want to call themselves these days as the “tolerant left.” I am sarcastic. The left is anything but open-minded and tolerant. Later Bill O’Reilly also used that term. Maybe I should have had it copyrighted.

As I have indicated in many of my writings, liberals are the real racists, hypocrites, liars, and bigots. If some left-winger hurls the racism accusation at me, I know that I have won the debate, the argument, or whatever. Liberals change the definition or racism to whatever suits their needs of the moment. If they cannot justify the hurling of other accusations at someone with whom they do not agree, they will resort to racism.

Hasan cites American National Election data and a “plethora” of studies that have concluded that since the start of the 2016 presidential campaign that the race was about race. Philip Klinkner, a political scientist at Hamilton College, and an expert on race relations (that’s what the article said), grabbed headlines last summer when he revealed that the best way to identify a Trump supporter was to ask that person if Obama was a Muslim.  If the person said yes and the person was white, 89% of the time that person would have a higher opinion of Trump than Clinton. So, anyone who thinks Obama is a Muslim and has white skin, probably a racist.

Wow! That’s what I call scientific.

Hasan also indicated that other surveys and polls of Trump voters found “a strong relationship between anti-black attitudes and support for Trump,” with rump supporters being more likely to describe African Americans as criminal, unintelligent, lazy, and violent. Also, Trump voters were most likely to believe that people of color are taking white jobs, and a majority of them rate blacks as less evolved than whites.

My regular readers know that I am from the state of Alabama and currently live in the Birmingham area. Yes, Birmingham, Alabama. I do not hear or observe any of the attitudes or statements that Mr. Hasan makes in the above paragraphs in this, the second half of the second decade of the twenty-first century. These attitudes may have been common in the late sixties/early to mid-seventies. But not now. Alternatively yet, maybe folks up north have these attitudes, but not here in the south.

Because Trump managed to win white votes regardless of age, gender, income, or education, racial identity and attitudes displaced class as the central battleground of American politics as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have espoused.

Hasan does cover the question, “how can racial resentment have motivated Trump supporters when so many of them voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012?” Klinkner covers that by stating that in 2016, Clinton, unlike Obama, faced a Republican candidate who pushed the buttons of race and nativism in open and explicit ways that John McCain and Mitt Romney were unwilling or unable to do. Did he? I followed the campaign closely, and it did not appear to me that Donald Trump was “pushing buttons of race and nativism in open and explicit ways.” The comments made about Mexicans who crossed the border illegally being criminals and rapists did not appear racist to me, nor did it to most conservatives. Liberals, of course, went ballistic, but what else is new?

So, based on the above notions, which are abstract at best, Mr. Hasan, concludes: “It isn’t the economy. It’s the racism, stupid.” But wait…is Mrs. Clinton not a white woman? Yes, Mrs. Clinton is indeed a white woman, who campaigned on continuing the policies of Barack Obama. So, if the voters, who overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama were pleased with the direction in which the country was heading, but just did not like Obama because of the color of his skin, they should be ecstatic that someone white was running and was promising to continue Obama-style governance.

Mr. Hasan’s reasoning is substantially flawed. Plus, these studies, which he sites sound bogus to me. Remember, though, Mr. Hasan is a liberal, and liberals do not have to be correct. They just have to say something over and over again until the fact that what they are saying is a lie no longer matters. It is now the truth. Liberals no longer have to be consistent. Being hypocritical is accepted in liberal land.

Are liberals ever going to stop hurling false accusations and those who do not agree with them? We all know the answer to that one. Are we ever going to get liberals to change? Of course not! Then why bother? Because we must continue to stand up for what is right. Standing down and letting the left continue to spout forth their lies and hypocrisies, allows them to win in the end.

Facebooktwitter