How
the Quest For Power Corrupted Elizabeth Warren
I first
met Elizabeth Warren when she was a professor at Harvard Law School, in 2004.
She was fresh off the publication of her bestselling book, "The Two-Income
Trap." There's no doubt she was politically liberal -- our only
face-to-face meeting involved a recruitment visit at the W Hotel in Los
Angeles, where she immediately made some sort of disparaging remark about Rush
Limbaugh -- but at the time, Warren was making waves for her iconoclastic
views. She wasn't a doctrinaire leftist, spewing Big Government nostrums. She
was a creative thinker.
That
creative thinking is obvious in "The Two-Income Trap," which
discusses the rising number of bankruptcies among middle-class parents,
particularly women with children. The book posits that women entered the workforce
figuring that by doing so, they could have double household income. But so many
women entered the workforce that they actually inflated prices for basic goods
like housing, thus driving debt skyward and leading to bankruptcies for
two-income families. The book argued that families with one income might
actually be better off, since families with two incomes spent nearly the full
combined income and then fell behind if one spouse lost a job. Families with
one income, by contrast, spent to the limit for one income, and if a spouse was
fired, the unemployed spouse would then look for work to replace that single
income.
Warren's
core insight was fascinating: She argued that massive expansion of the labor
force had actually created more stressful living and driven down median wages.
But her policy recommendations were even more fascinating. She explicitly
argued against "more government regulation of the housing market,"
slamming "complex regulations," since they "might actually worsen
the situation by diminishing the incentive to build new houses or improve older
ones." Instead, she argued in favor of school choice, since pressure on
housing prices came largely from families seeking to escape badly run
government school districts: "A well-designed voucher program would fit
the bill neatly."
Her
heterodox policy proposals didn't stop there. She refused to "join the
chorus calling for taxpayer-funded day care" on its own, calling it a
"sacred cow." At the very least, she suggested that
"government-subsidized day care would add one more indirect pressure on
mothers to join the workforce." She instead sought a more comprehensive
educational solution that would include "tax credits for stay-at-home
parents."
She
ardently opposed additional taxpayer subsidization of college loans, too, or
more taxpayer spending on higher education directly. Instead, she called for a
tuition freeze from state schools. She recommended tax incentives for families
to save rather than spend. She opposed radical solutions wholesale: "We
haven't suggested a complete overhaul of the tax structure, and we haven't
demanded that businesses cease and desist from ever closing another plant or
firing another worker. Nor have we suggested that the United States should
build a quasi-socialist safety net to rival the European model."
So, what
happened to Warren?
Power.
The other
half of iconoclastic Warren was typical progressive, anti-financial industry
Warren. In "The Two-Income Trap," she proposes reinstating state
usury laws, cutting off access to payday lenders and heavily regulating the
banking industry -- all in the name of protecting Americans from themselves.
While her position castigating the credit industry for deliberate obfuscation
of clients was praiseworthy, her quest to "protect consumers" quickly
morphed into a quest to create the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau -- an
independent agency without any serious checks or balances. But despite her best
efforts, she never became head of the CFPB, failing to woo Republican senators.
The result: an emboldened Warren who saw her popularity as tied to her Big
Government agenda. No more reaching across the aisle; no more iconoclastic
policies. Instead, she would be Ralph Nader II, with a feminist narrative to
boot.
And so,
she's gaining ground in the 2020 presidential race as a Bernie Sanders
knockoff. Ironically, her great failing could be her lack of moderation -- the
moderation she abandoned in her quest for progressive power. If Elizabeth
Warren circa 2003 were running, she'd be the odds-on favorite for president.
But Warren circa 2019 would hate Warren circa 2003.
Ben Shapiro, 35, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, host of
"The Ben Shapiro Show" and editor-in-chief of DailyWire.com. He is
the author of the No. 1 New York Times bestseller "The Right Side Of
History." He lives with his wife and two children in Los Angeles.
Trump vs. Warren: Trump Builds, Warren Destroys
President Trump's vision of our country is America First. Unlike all presidents of the past 30 years, Donald Trump is not afraid of saying he puts his own people first. Everything he does is in the interest of ordinary Americans.
The policy of America First rejects the globalist and universalist policies of the past that saw America as just one nation among others — and a guilty and undeserving nation at that. The low point in this anti-American era was President Obama's apology tour of 2009, during which he traveled to Europe and the Middle East apologizing for everything America had done in the past and promising that we would do better in the future. They loved it in Berlin and Cairo, places where they do not love America and where they do not share our fundamental values of individual liberty. Obama spoke the words that other nations wanted to hear, and he spoke them because he shared their disdain. He believed that America needed to be "transformed" from what it had been in the past.
That kind of antagonism toward America is shared by Elizabeth Warren today. She does not speak with awe of the Greatest Generation that saved the world from fascism and communism. Nor does she celebrate the greatness of our capitalist economy, the sanctity of life, the Second Amendment, the right of religious expression in the public sphere, the need for a strong military and police force (including ICE), the crucial role of the family, or even the debt we owe to our legal immigrants.
Instead, Warren is pushing the transformation of America farther. Her official website offers no fewer than 46 "plans" for changing America. It says nothing about preserving what is good about our country.
Warren's plans range from the familiar "protecting a woman's right to choose" to "100% clean energy for America." They cover every politically correct topic, from "LGBTQ+ rights" to "A fair and welcoming immigration system" — welcoming those who cross illegally? When one digs into her "plans," they come down to a familiar, even trite recitation of progressive causes — call it Obama on steroids. Warren offers nothing that is different — only more of what didn't work in the past.
Warren's plan for "gun safety," for example, involves familiar ideas for restrictions on gun ownership: universal background checks, extended waiting periods, and bans on sales to many classes of individuals. It goes even farther by "holding gun companies accountable" for crimes involving use of their weapons — in effect, forcing them into bankruptcy. And it promises investigations that would weaken the NRA as well.
Democrats have always run with promises of free cash, and Warren's plan for Social Security is not at all different. It includes an immediate increase of $2,400 per year in benefits to all recipients, plus "even greater" increases for "people of color" and "women and caregivers, low-income workers, public sector workers, students and job-seekers, and people with disabilities." Everyone gets an extra raise except those who have worked and paid in most of their lives.
One of Warren's more extreme "plans" is her support for the Refund Equality Act — a bill that would refund taxes to homosexual couples who previously filed as unmarried singles. The point is that in the past, before the legal recognition of gay "marriage," homosexuals living together were single. That is why they filed as singles. Warren wants to extend tax refunds to them retroactively.
A disturbing pattern emerges in Warren's plans for America. At every point, they pit one class of Americans against another. Women versus men. Blacks versus whites. Gays versus straights. Disabled versus abled. And especially poor versus rich. In the past, despite whatever disparities that existed, Americans saw themselves as one people. They believed that their treasured citizenship as Americans was more important than any differences. My family was not rich, but we didn't go around railing against the 1% — or, in Warren's case, the 2%. All that Warren can do is to attack those she sees as "privileged."
Another pattern in Warren's plan is the emphasis on collectivism, or, if you like, socialism — and Warren is a socialist, despite her disavowal. Like many socialists before her, Warren wants sweeping government control of private enterprise. As she says, she believes in "markets that have a cop on the beat and have real rules and everybody follows them." Markets with agency "cops," constant regulation, and "everybody" after them are not free markets. What Warren wants is government control of markets, not free enterprise. Her over-regulation would stifle the robust economy that President Trump has set in motion.
Warren's environmental views have been described as an "adult version" of Greta Thunberg's sneering performance at the U.N. last month. Warren supports the Paris climate agreement and most other globalist initiatives that would curtail U.S. power and growth. Meanwhile, she opposes the USMCA (NAFTA 2.0), which would benefit American farmers and manufacturers. Her positions are not based on what would help ordinary Americans — they are aimed at pleasing her narrow political base.
If there is one word that describes Warren, it is "planner," and like socialists everywhere, Warren has a government plan for everything. That includes family planning. Warren is an "aggressive" supporter of abortion who wants to require private insurance and Medicaid to fund abortions. She believes that unwanted children should be aborted.
So far, Warren's socialism remains just a dream, but that will change if she is elected president. Her supporters love it when she attacks the rich, Wall Street, and Big Business. Yet, despite all her words about "saving the middle class," she has accomplished little in her seven years in the U.S. Senate. In the latest 2019–2020 term, Warren sponsored or (mostly) co-sponsored 357 bills, but of the handful that passed the Senate, only one made it to the president (the Christa McAuliffe Commemorative Coin Act of 2019), and Warren was not the primary sponsor even of this bill.
If elected, Warren would undermine much of what America has been for 243 years: "the land of the free," a country whose citizens possess the liberty to worship as they like, speak as they like, work as they like, save and invest as they like (without the confiscatory wealth tax and investment trading taxes that Warren is proposing), and live their private lives as they like. Warren's policies, if carried to their logical end, would undermine all of our freedoms. They would impose sweeping hate speech limitations on free speech, restrict gun ownership, prohibit religious expression in public areas, curtail investment, and place businesses under close government regulation and control — in effect, nationalizing the economy.
This is very far from America as we have known it, and it is far from President Trump's ethos of America First.
Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and articles on American culture including Heartland of the Imagination (2011).
Elizabeth Warren caught makin' it up about pregnancy discrimination
Elizabeth Warren has a pretty impressive penchant for makin' it up when it comes to serving a leftist narrative.
Fake Indian, complete with tales of discrimination experienced, worked for awhile, until it didn't.
So did the fake research, claiming medical costs are the reason behind most bankruptcies. Nope, not at all.
Now we have Warren saying that when she became pregnant as a young teacher of special-ed students, presumably in the 1960s, she was asked to leave her post for being visibly pregnant. A found tape of her speaking in 2008 suggests maybe she actually wanted to leave her dead-end job teaching special-ed to scale the career ladder instead.
According to this report in Fox News:
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., suggested this week that a school principal effectively fired her from a teaching job after she became "visibly pregnant," but a resurfaced video indicates that wasn't the actual reason she left the job."I was married at nineteen and then graduated from college [at the University of Houston] after I’d married," Warren, then a Harvard Law School professor, said in an interview posted to YouTube in 2008. "My first year post-graduation, I worked -- it was in a public school system but I worked with the children with disabilities. I did that for a year, and then that summer I actually didn’t have the education courses, so I was on an 'emergency certificate,' it was called."I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, 'I don’t think this is going to work out for me,'" Warren continued. "I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years, and I was really casting about, thinking, 'What am I going to do?'"
Now, it's possible she didn't tell her whole story and maybe the principal did 'hint' 'hint' that she ought to leave for being pregnant which might have been a secondary factor for her exit. There are women this has happened to. (I had a friend who had to accept a general discharge from the Navy over being pregnant and not being able to make it to basic training, so this sort of thing actually does happen, at least in government). But given that this happened apparently in the early woke 1970s, the era of George McGovern, and along with the rest of what Warren said, there's reason to find that possibility dubious.
Warren was teaching in a more-demanding, less prestigious, and for that reason, easier-to-obtain special ed teaching slot (based on the accounts she's given, it sounded as though she wanted to be a classic school teacher of ordinary or maybe gifted kids), without the credentials to move upward, it's more likely that she did want out and wasn't escorted out. Her biography says she was a brilliant student, and gave up a full scholarship to George Washington University to marry her boyfriend and move to Texas instead. It was a marriage that eventually ended and probably soured well before that, so there would have been many disappointments in her life at about that time, and the lack of certificate would have hampered her capacity to get the kind of teaching slot she might have really wanted.
Just the fact that the school system did have a special-ed track suggests it was already woke and unionized, so quite likely not discriminating against pregnant women. It ought to be checked for sure. And the fact that she was teaching on a 'emergency certificate,' most likely meant there was a labor shortage, so once again, unlikely that they would want to dump a trained teacher on a tough beat they didn't have enough people for, solely for being pregnant.
She also didn't mention that she wasn't a liberal at the time she was doing the teaching -- her swing to the left came as she climbed the career ladder and moved into monolithically blue ivy league elitist circles. She did that the easiest way, too, by focusing on finance as a means of keeping attention low on ideological issues. (When I was a rare conservative at Columbia journalism school, I focused on financial journalism for what was likely the exact same reason -- to be in an area where the ideological talk would be kept a minimum.) But it was probably too much for her and she eventually came out as a leftist in order to advance. It's an ideological bubble over there, so it's quite possible she was so immersed in it she eventually came to believe it, too. Bottom line, the supposed pregnancy exit in the schoolhouse wasn't something that radicalized her, so again, her claim is dubious.
It goes to show that Warren has a habit of making things up, not just for personal advantage, not just to appear a hero, the way Joe Biden does, but in her case, specifically to advance a false left wing 'narrative.'
She claimed her Indian ancestry derived from a mixed-race marriage among her ancestors resulted in discrimination - a truly phony claim given that there was no recent Indian ancestor - but it was useful to claim for the lefty 'narrative' that America, even in a nice place like Oklahoma, was brimming with racists.
She claimed medical costs in her research were behind most bankruptcies - totally errant, but again, useful for the leftist narrative to advance a the idea of a socialist government takeover of health care. Now she's thrown out this whopper on being ousted for pregancy, making herself part of a labor/women's grievance narrative always experiencing pregnancy discrimination because the discriminators even in lefty woke educational institutions are rampant in society. It's nonsense.
It's a lefty vision of a world that doesn't exist which is why it's constantly trapping her and exposing her as a liar.
Image credit: Lorie Schaul, via Wikimedia Commons // CC BY-SA 2.0
Elizabeth Warren 2007 Video Contradicts Campaign Tale of Losing Job For Being Pregnant
5:59
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has made a habit of telling audiences at campaign rallies how she lost her beloved job teaching children with special needs at a public school when she became “visibly pregnant.” However a recently-unearthed video from 2007 suggests she left because she lacked the necessary education qualifications.
Warren’s biography has been central to her pitch to voters. For example, in Franconia, New Hampshire, in August — the town hall meeting that marked the start of her latest surge — she said (emphasis added):
I have known what I wanted to do since second grade. You may laugh — you didn’t decide ’til third grade, fourth grade. [Laugher] Not me, man. I have known since second grade: I wanted to be a public school teacher. Can we hear it for America’s public school teachers? [Applause] Oh, I knew — and I invested early. I used to line my dollies up and teach school. I had a reputation for being tough, but fair. [Laughter] I’m just kidding. I loved it, I loved it. And I never wavered from what I wanted to do. But by the time I graduated from high school, my family didn’t have the money to pay for a college application, much less to send me off to a four years at a university. So, like a lot of Americans, I have a story that kind of has a bunch of twists and turns in it. And here’s how mine goes. I got a scholarship to college — yay! — and then, at 19, I fell in love, dropped out, got married, took a minimum wage job. [Laughter] It was my choice, and it was going to be a good life. But it wasn’t a dream. I thought I’d given up on ever being able to teach school. And then, and then — I found it. I found a commuter college, 45 minutes away, that cost $50 a semester. And for a price I could pay for, on a part-time waitressing job, I finished my four-year diploma, I became a special needs teacher — I have lived my dream job! [Applause] Now do I have any special needs teachers here? [Applause] Oh, good — I’ve got some. Got some here. Fabulous. Back me up on this: teaching special needs is not a job, it’s a calling. And I loved it. I truly loved it. I still can remember the faces — I had little ones. Still remember their faces. And I probably would still be doing that work today, only my story has some more twists and turns. And here’s how the next twist goes. By the end of my first year in teaching, I was visibly pregnant. And the principal did what principals did in those days: wished me luck and hired someone else for the job. Okay, so I’m at home, I’ve got a baby now, no chance to get a job. What am I going to do? And the answer is: I’ll to go to law school!
Warren told a similar story at the last Democratic Party presidential primary debate in September (emphasis added):
By the time I graduated from high school, my family didn’t have money for a college application, much less to send me off to four years at a university. And my story, like a lot of stories, has a lot of twists and turns. Got a scholarship, and then at 19, I got married, dropped out of school, took a minimum wage job, thought my dream was over.I got a chance down the road at the University of Houston. And I made it as a special needs teacher. I still remember that first year as a special needs teacher. I could tell you what those babies looked like. I had 4- to 6-year-olds.But at the end of that first year, I was visibly pregnant. And back in the day, that meant that the principal said to me — wished me luck and hired someone else for the job.So, there I am, I’m at home, I got a baby, I can’t have a job. What am I going to do? Here’s resilience. I said, I’ll go to law school.
However, Warren’s current version of the story contradicts a version she told during a recently-resurfaced interview in 2007, when — as a Harvard Law School professor — she described her career path (4:42 to 7:49, emphasis added):
I’m of that generation where there were only two things that a woman could do if she wanted to do something other than stay home, and that was: she could become a nurse or she could become a teacher. And so there were some awfully able women who taught me from grade school on. And what they opened me up to was the possibility that I could become a teacher. And, frankly, that’s when I went off — When I went off to college, the whole idea was so that I could be a teacher. That’s what I wanted to do … I came to college on a debate scholarship. I was 16 years old when I graduated from high school. And I got a full scholarship in debate — that was room, board, tuition, books, and a little spending money. It was a fabulous scholarship. At George Washington University. If I would debate for them. It was sort of the equivalent of an athletic scholarship, only this was one that actually a girl could get, even though there weren’t very many girls in debate, either. I was going to be a teacher. And I quickly switched over and decided what I wanted to do was work with brain injured children. And so I got my degree in speech pathology and audiology, which meant that I would be able to work with children who had head trauma, and other kinds of brain injuries. And that’s what I did. .. I was married at 19, and then graduated from college, actually, after I’d married. And my first year of post graduation, I worked — it was within a public school system, but I worked with the children with disabilities. And I did that for a year. And then that summer — I actually didn’t have the education courses, so I was on an “emergency certificate,” it was called. And I went back to graduate school, and took a couple of courses in education, and said, “I don’t think this is going to work out for me.” And I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby, and I stayed home for a couple of years, and I was really casting about, thinking what am I going to do. … And so I went back home to Oklahoma … for Christmas, and saw a bunch of the boys that I’d been in high school debate with, and they’d all gone on to law school. And they said, “You should go to law school, you’ll love it.” And I said, “You really think so?” And they said, “Of all of us who should have gone to law school, you’re the one who should have gone to law school.”
There are consistent themes in these stories, such as that Warren wanted to teach children with special needs — as well as some puzzles (such as her claim that she could not afford to apply to college, then received a scholarship).
But there are also contradictions — and the most glaring is the different reasons given for her leaving her teaching job.
In the 2007 version of the story, the reason for her leaving her job was that she lacked the necessary education qualifications and was on a special contract — not because a male principal dismissed her for becoming pregnant. It was her subsequent studies in education, not discrimination, that convinced her to choose a different career path.
However, on the campaign trail, Warren has chosen to tell what Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher describes as a story in which “[t]he central idea has always been that she was living her dream of being a public school special ed teacher until some villainous Mad Men-era principal put the kibosh on the whole thing because of her baby bump.”
The program that interviewed Warren is called Conversations with History, a project of the University of California. The story about the contradictions appears to have been broken first by blogger Jeryl Bier, who in turn credited left-wing Jacobin magazine wrier Meagan Day, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, for the information.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard College, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
So no one who worked for Obama should ever be investigated?
Since January 2017, the media and other Democrats have talked about the Constitution, the rule of law, and piously intoned that no one is above the rule of law.
Yet from January 2009 to January 2017, the Constitution and rule of law were effectively suspended for President Obama and those who worked for him.
Here are some examples:
Trump did not dictatorially and unilaterally change and ignore existing immigration law. That was Obama, and Trump is trying to reverse Obama's unconstitutional action and enforce the laws Congress passed as his oath requires.
Trump did not sue states that sought to enforce immigration laws. That was Obama.
Trump did not threaten to cut off funds from Ukraine if they didn't do something specific. That was Obama and his vice president, Joe Biden. What's more, Biden said it on tape. That was quid pro quo.
The U.S. and Europe, in the 1990s, agreed to help Ukraine defend itself if it would agree to give up nuclear weapons. When Ukraine was attacked by Russia, the agreement meant nothing. Obama turned down the request. Trump didn't -- and gave them the weapons.
The U.S and Ukraine also have an agreement, a law signed by then-President Clinton, to cooperate on corruption. Obama looked the other way as Biden's son got a $50,000 per month retainer in a no-show job he knew nothing about. Biden himself threatened to cut off funds if the prosecutor investigating the company's previously corrupt dealings didn't get fired on the spot. The media didn't care about that, but it goes after Trump for looking into corruption.
Trump didn't take $1.8 billion of taxpayer money to bribe Iranian tyrants. That was Obama.
Trump did not charge eight whistleblowers with violating the Espionage Act nor did he sic the government on journalists. That was Obama. If Trump even uses the word 'spy,' the media and other Democrats accuse him of violating the law. Remember this?
Obama’s Legacy: A Historic War On Whistleblowers
As for Obama’s record, here’s what history will show: In his eight years in office, the Obama Justice Department spearheaded eight Espionage Act prosecutions, more than all US administrations combined. Journalists were also caught in the crosshairs: Investigators sought phone records for Associated Press journalists, threatened to jail an investigative reporter for The New York Times, and named a Fox News reporter a co-conspirator in a leak case. In Texas, a journalist investigating private defense contractors became the focus of a federal prosecution and was initially charged for sharing a hyperlink containing hacked information that had already been made public.
The Trump administration didn't illegally spy on thousands of Americans, including on people surrounding his political opponents as well as on reporters. That was Obama.
Trump didn't use the media to spread lies about the Iranian deal. That was Obama, according to his loyal creative-writing minion, Ben Rhodes.
Trump didn't dictatorially stop a years-long investigation by the supposedly "independent" Justice Department into drug running by terrorists sponsored by Iran. That was Obama.
Trump didn't use the IRS to violate the freedom of speech and freedom of association rights of political opponents. That was Obama.
Trump didn't violate the nation's bankruptcy laws to reward political supporters. That was Obama, rewarding unions when he used taxpayer money to bailout GM.
Trump didn't use foreign nationals as an excuse to spy on and attempt to take out a political opponent. That was the Obama administration, in collusion with the DNC and Hillary Clinton.
The Trump administration did not illegally unmask names surrounding his political opponents. That was Obama.
Trump did not give U.S. uranium operations to Russia after his Secretary of State got massive donations for her foundation and her husband got huge amounts for a single speech from Russia. That was Obama.
Trump did not whisper that he would be flexible with Russia. That was Obama.
Trump did not give a stand down order to stop investigating Russian hacking before an election. That was Obama.
Trump did not allow people to die while concocting a lie about a video to protect his political power. That was Obama (and Hillary).
Trump did not violate separation of powers by illegally stealing money more than once to pay shortfalls for Obamacare. That was Obama.
Trump did not shake down corporations and set up slush funds at EPA, Justice and CFPB to be used for political purposes and to reward political supporters. That was Obama.
Trump does not look away when sanctuary cities and states refuse to enforce immigration laws that Congress passed. That was Obama.
Trump did not willfully and illegally withhold documents from Congress for years on Fast and Furious. That was Obama.
Trump did not have an Secretary of State who continually violated the nations security laws and then made sure that she wasn't prosecuted. That was Obama. Maybe that was because Obama himself violated the laws by corresponding with her on that computer.
Trump did not have a Secretary of State handing out favors for huge foreign donations. That was Obama.
Trump did not look the other way while people named Eric Holder, James Clapper, John Brennan, Susan Rice and others committing perjury. That was Obama. People associated with Obama were always above the law while the media and other Democrats lecture the public about no one being above the law.
For eight years most of the media cheered as Obama and his administration ignored the law and Constitution and for three years, they have been searching for a crime with which to impeach Trump. They print fake stories with anonymous sources to seek reasons to impeach. They act like the Obama administration was scandal-free to intentionally mislead the public because the only thing that matters is power for Democrats.
It is truly a shame that so few in the media, in collusion with other Democrats, believe that Democrats are above the law and intentionally mislead the public by creating fake crimes for Trump.
It is a bigger shame when Republicans want to be loved by the media and other Democrats and instead of wanting to root out crimes and corruption climb on board to attack Trump.
Thank God for Trump and his tweeting because if he was not so vocal, he would have been gone by now and the corrupt media and other Democrats would be well on their way to destroying America, capitalism and our way of life. Few Republicans have the gonads that Trump has to take the cabal on the way he does.
No comments:
Post a Comment