Friday, August 12, 2016

Clintonville - Just Another Day! Hillary's Health? Black Conservatives Are Targeted Because Their Independence Crucifies The Liberal Message!l

Texas related posters.

Those damn Clinton e mails suggesting she traded
favors for foundation contributions.
Just another day in Clintonville but Trump undercuts the impact. (See 1, 1a and 1b below.)

Trump lags in the polls and the press and media are doing everything they can to continue putting the bad mouth on him.  They must because  e mails continue to surface daily indicating Hillary used her office to enrich her foundation.  This simply reinforces the public's view the Clinton's are treated in a special way, are never held accountable for their misdeeds and are beyond the reach of the Obama Justice Department.

Is this the trade off Obama has reached in order to make sure Hillary, should she become president, stays on track and protects his legacy?
Does Hillary have Parkinson? I read an article by a pharmacist stating she might .  Hillary may have health issues but she is unfit to become president, not because of her potential  ill health, but because she is untrustworthy, places self above the security of our nation and is an unmitigated pathological liar.
This from my English girl friend:
Doctor : Your Liver is enlarged Patient : Does that mean it has space for more whisky ? (This is called "Positive Thinking")

Lady to her dietician : What l am worried about is my height and not my weight.

Doc :- How come???

Lady :- According to my weight, my height should be 7.8 feet... This is "Positive Attitude.”

A Man wrote to the bank. "My Cheque was returned with remark 'Insufficient funds'. I want to know whether it refers to mine or the Bank".

 (This is self confidence in its peak.)

This one is classic !!
A cockroach's last words to a man who wanted to kill it : "Go ahead and kill me, you coward. You're just jealous because I can scare your wife and you cannot..!!!!" 

 and, this from a dear friend and fellow memo reader about how his  American identity is shrinking:

Went to a "shrink" the other day and here is what I found out.

The following is a recap of my current identity:

I was born a white male, which makes me a racist.

I am a fiscal and moral conservative, which makes me a fascist. 

I am heterosexual, which makes me a homophobe.

I am non-union, which makes me a traitor to the working class and an ally of big business.

I am older than 65 and retired, which makes me a useless old man.

I think and I reason; therefore I doubt much that the main stream media tells me, which makes me a reactionary. 

I am proud of my heritage and our inclusive American culture, which makes me a xenophobe.

I value my safety and that of my family; therefore I appreciate the police and the legal system, which makes me a right-wing extremist.

I believe in hard work, fair play, and fair compensation according to each individual's merits, which makes me anti-socialist.

I acquired a good education without student loans and no debt at graduation, which makes me some kind of odd underachiever.

I believe in the defense and protection of the homeland by all citizens, which makes me a militarist.

Please help me come to terms with this, because I‘m not sure who I am anymore!

Newest problem – I'm not sure which bathroom I should direct people to
More of the same .  Hamas benefits from your charitable tax dollars. (See 2 and 2a below.)
If you are black, conservative and seeking public office consider yourself a target of the left.  They will stop at nothing to smear you because your existence, your ability to stand on your own two feet, your willingness to be accountable for yourself makes a mockery their pitiful message. (See 3 below.)


Hillary’s Latest ‘Old News’

Mrs. Clinton has set herself up for an October Surprise.

0:00 / 0:00

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton on new emails that reveal close ties between the Clintons’ charity and the State Department. Photo credit: Getty Images.
Funny how the word “email” continues to haunt Hillary Clinton even as she dismisses every new revelation as “old news.” The latest new-old news comes in the release by Judicial Watch of 44 emails from her personal server that Mrs. Clinton failed to turn over in the batch she told the State Department included everything that was work-related. The emails paint a picture of top Clinton aides at State eager to do favors for Clinton Foundation donors.
At the heart of these documents is the glaring conflict of interest that Mrs. Clinton carried into the State Department—and then spread to those around her. Only months after the Clinton Foundation agreed to ethics protocols designed to keep Mrs. Clinton’s department from mixing State with foundation business, these new emails show her two closest aides— Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills—doing the bidding of Clinton Foundation executive Doug Band.
On April 22, 2009, Mr. Band emailed Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills to say it’s “important to take care of [name redacted]. The subject line reads: “Fw: A favor.” Far from suggesting the favor was inappropriate, Ms. Abedin responded that the person was on State’s “radar,” and that “personnel has been sending him options.” Shouldn’t Americans know who this person was and why he was so important to Mr. Band?
The ties among Mrs. Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and State would become more incestuous. Two years after Mr. Band sent this email, he founded Teneo, a consulting firm. Ms. Abedin would soon draw a paycheck from Teneo at the same time she was also working for both State and the Clinton Foundation.
Another 2009 email has Mr. Band telling Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills that “We need Gilbert chagoury [sic] to speak to the substance person re lebanon.” Within hours, Ms. Abedin replies that the “substance person” is Jeff Feltman—the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs and former U.S. ambassador to Lebanon. A follow up email from Mr. Band urges her to call him “now.”
The email doesn’t spell out what Mr. Chagoury wanted from the ambassador, but let your imagination run. Mr. Chagoury is a Lebanese-Nigerian whose family businesses thrived under Gen. Sani Abacha, the military dictator who ruled Nigeria for years. According to a 2001 British court decision, the Nigerian government agreed not to prosecute Mr. Chagoury and unfreeze his Swiss bank accounts if he paid back millions it claimed had been stolen.
In the 1990s, after Mr. Chagoury made donations to a progressive nonprofit group, he was invited to a White House holiday dinner with President Clinton. He also had a meeting on U.S.-Nigeria relations with high-level Clinton Administration officials.
Turns out—non-surprise—Mr. Chagoury has donated at least $1 million to the Clinton Foundation while pledging $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative. In 2003 Mr. Chagoury paid Mr. Clinton $100,000 for a speech in the Caribbean. The question is whose interests was State serving when it tried to hook him up with our ambassador to Lebanon?
A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign said in a statement: “Neither of these emails involve the Secretary or relate to the Foundation’s work. They are communications between her aides [Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills] and the President’s personal aide [Mr. Band], and indeed the recommendation was for one of the Secretary’s former staffers who was not employed by the Foundation.”
So the emails involve her husband, her family foundation, and employees who worked for her at the State Department, but we are supposed to believe they have nothing to do with her or her former job as Secretary of State?
Does anyone think Mr. Chagoury would get a meeting with a senior State Department official if Mrs. Clinton wasn’t Secretary, or if he hadn’t given to the Clinton Foundation? This is another example of the Clinton business model of using political influence to get rich and further advance their political careers.


The Clinton campaign believes the media are so committed to defeating Donald Trumpthat they’ll play down this sleazy business—and maybe that’s right. But Judicial Watch’sTom Fitton says more emails are coming from his freedom-of-information litigation. And Julian Assange at WikiLeaks—which made public the hacked Democratic National Committee emails showing how the DNC favored Mrs. Clinton over rival Bernie Sanders—says he’ll release more emails involving the Clinton Foundation.
We know Mrs. Clinton didn’t turn over some 33,000 emails that she claimed were about personal matters, but that excuse becomes more doubtful with each new email discovery. If those emails do surface, she will try to blame Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin or WikiLeaks. But the fault will lie with Mrs. Clinton’s willful deception and gross negligence about handling official State business that have left her wide open for an October Surprise.

1a)The Clintons’ Crumbling Foundation
By Noah Rothman

If there was going to be a “smoking gun” in relation to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s scandalous “homebrew” email server, it was going to be one that exposed a link between the Clinton family’s private charitable organization and the Democratic nominee’s role as America’s chief diplomat. It now seems that Clinton wasn’t merely “extremely careless” with sensitive documents related to American national security, as FBI Director James Comey insisted, but that she was equally reckless in maintaining a separation between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department.

Emails obtained recently by Judicial Watch, which had been sent and received by close Clinton associates, suggest that the State Department played an important role in keeping Clinton Foundation members and donors happy.

One incriminating email exchange features former Clinton Foundation senior administrator Doug Band requesting that Clinton confidante and State Department aide Huma Abedin “take care of” an individual whose name was redacted. She replied that “personnel has been sending him options.” Band left the State Department in 2011 to take on a role at Teneo Holdings, an international consulting firm that later hired Abedin to perform consulting work even while she still occupied a senior role at the State Department.
In another email sent by Band to Abedin and close Clinton associate and then-chief of staff to the Secretary of State Cheryl Mills, he requested that they put the wealthy and connected Lebanese-Nigerian businessman Gilbert Chagoury in touch with a State Department “substance person” in Lebanon. Abedin replied by noting that she would put Chagoury in touch with Jeff Feltman, who was America’s ambassador to Lebanon at the time. Chagoury is believed to be a prolific donator to the Clinton Foundation and may have also contributed thousands to outside organizations that financially supported Bill Clinton’s 1996 reelection campaign.
The implication in these email communications is that those with close connections to the Clinton Foundation had easy access to the Secretary of State’s office, and received quick and unusual assistance in their queries—some of which appear to be employment-related. If proven, that would be a clear violation of an ethics agreement signed by Clinton Foundation chairman (then CEO) Bruce Linsey and senior advisor to President Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett, in 2009 as a precondition for Clinton’s appointment to serve as Secretary of State.

This isn’t the first indication that Hillary Clinton did not observe the kind of moiety mandated in that agreement between the family foundation’s activities and those related to American national affairs. In the spring of 2015, the New York Times revealed that Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved (as did a Cabinet-level commission) the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium production capacity to a Russian-based firm in 2013 despite national security concerns. But as State was reviewing this deal, the Clinton Foundation accepted a $2.35 million donation from the company purchasing U.S. uranium production, a firm that was soon to be transferred directly into the control of the Russian state.

The Clinton Foundation received donations from unsavory states with checkered human rights records like Brunei and Saudi Arabia while Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State. “In one instance, foundation officials acknowledged they should have sought approval in 2010 from the State Department ethics office, as required by the agreement for new government donors, before accepting a $500,000 donation from the Algerian government,” the Washington Post reported in 2015.

According to Newsweek’s reporting in 2015, Ukrainian financier and Clinton Foundation donor Victor Pinchuk facilitated the 2011-2012 transfer to Iran of a variety of oil and gas-production materials in violation of sanctions against the Islamic Republic. Pinchuk and the firms he controlled may have been subject to American penalties for these deals. But Pinchuk was also the single largest contributor to the Clinton Foundation at the time. He partied with former President Bill Clinton in the French Alps, attended the inauguration of Clinton’s presidential library, and joined the 42nd President to celebrate his 65th birthday in 2011.

“The FBI went to Justice Department earlier this year asking for it to open a case into the foundation, but the public integrity unit declined,” CNN revealed on Wednesday. “The Justice Department had looked into whether it should open a case on the foundation a year prior and found it didn’t have sufficient evidence to do so.” It’s not entirely clear what in all of this does not rise to merit the Justice Department’s attention. If there is no fire here, the smoke is practically suffocating.

The Clinton Foundation stinks. We haven’t heard the last revelations about its dubious deals or Hillary Clinton’s contemptuous conduct as Secretary of State.


What Obscures Clinton’s Scandals?


Your Tax Dollars Fund Palestinian Terror

How do U.S. aid transfers square with laws against funding terrorism? Willful blindness helps.

Inside a tunnel during summer camp in Gaza City, July 20.ENLARGE
Inside a tunnel during summer camp in Gaza City, July 20. PHOTO: ASSOCIATED PRESS
With an indictment unsealed last week, Israeli investigators have sounded an alarm over the illicit use of global aid money to fund Palestinian terrorism. Prosecutors in the city of Beersheba allege that Mohammed El-Halabi, Gaza Strip director of the California-based charity World Vision, transferred tens of millions of dollars to Hamas to buy weapons and build underground attack tunnels. Although World Vision denies fault, the governments of Australia and Germany have halted donations pending investigations.
This revelation should spur a broader reassessment of American aid to the Palestinian government. For two decades the Palestinian government has used U.S. and other foreign taxpayers’ money to pay generous rewards to the families of terrorists. The deadlier the crime, the larger the prize, up to about $3,100 a month, or several times the average salary of a worker in Palestine’s non-terrorist economy.
Recall that 13-year-old Hallel Yaffa Ariel was murdered in her bed by a knife-wielding Palestinian in June. She was a dual Israeli-American citizen, making her the 11th American killed by Palestinians since 2014. Other victims include 18-year-old Ezra Schwartz, a student from Sharon, Mass., and 28-year-old Taylor Force, a West Point graduate and two-tour U.S. Army veteran from Lubbock, Texas. The families of the killers now receive regular payments from Palestinian leaders—funded partly by U.S. taxpayers.
No U.S. official can plead ignorance. Palestinian law has sanctioned these payments since at least 2004, specifying how much money is earned depending on the circumstances of the attacker and the body count. A Palestinian from Israel with a wife and children who kills many people and dies in the act, or is captured and sentenced to more than 30 years in prison, earns the most. Single, childless attackers from the West Bank or Gaza earn less. The incentives are clear.
Palestinian leaders once tried to obscure their payments by characterizing them as “assistance” rather than “salaries.” They also shifted nominal responsibility from the Palestinian Authority (PA), which takes donations from foreign governments, to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which doesn’t. But this was a sham, as both bodies are run by Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah party.
In 2014 Israel estimated the terror payments at $75 million, or a sum equal to 16% of all aid sent to Palestine from overseas. This year the figure is nearly $140 million, says Yigal Carmon of the Middle East Media Research Institute.
How do U.S. aid transfers square with laws against funding terrorism? Willful blindness helps. “I think that they plan to phase it out,” State Department official Anne Pattersonsaid in 2014 after the meaningless PA-to-PLO two-step. This year’s State Department report on terrorism praised Palestinian leaders for “many improvements,” including making “terrorism financing a criminal offense.” It said nothing about official payments to terrorists.
The U.S. also fears that limiting aid to Palestine could destabilize the Abbas government, which for all its sins is preferable to Hamas. Israel shares this fear. And therein lies a basic failing of both U.S. and Israeli strategy: reliance on illiberal kleptocratic leaders like Mr. Abbas whose legitimacy, such as it is, derives from their association with the terrorist “resistance” against Israel.
In 2002 George W. Bush tried to reorient the strategy, calling on Palestinians to elect new leaders “not compromised by terror.” But he got little traction among his own diplomats, who preferred to extend the “peace process” of the 1990s, and among Israeli leaders, who scorned the notion that near-term Palestinian political reform was possible.
Today there is no Palestinian liberalization project and the U.S. and Israel are propping up Mr. Abbas, an octogenarian in the 11th year of a four-year term who is unwilling or unable to stop inciting terrorism, glorifying “martyrs” and paying gifts to their families.
A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers led by Sen. Dan Coats (R., Ind.) wants to cut U.S. aid to Palestine by whatever amount is paid to terrorists. This is well-meaning but inadequate.
As long as Palestinian political culture remains unchanged—as long as Palestine’s liberal friends excuse its every illiberal offense—expect the glorification of terrorism to continue. This is a political scandal far greater than any single charity funneling funds to Hamas.
Mr. Feith is a Journal editorial writer based in Hong Kong



By Giulio Meotti,

  • “Islam is a French religion and the French language is a language of Islam.” — Tariq Ramadan.
  • In 1989, Dalil Boubakeur, rector of the Grand Mosque of Paris, justified the persecution of Salman Rushdie by Ayatollah Khomeini. Last year, Boubakeur called for the conversion of churches into mosques.
  • In Britain, mainstream Muslim organizations are dispensing “Islamic justice” through more than 85 sharia courts attached to mosques.
  • Civil war in France is what the Islamic State is looking for: unleashing a blind repression so that the Muslim population will show solidarity with the revolutionary minority. Yet, there is still worse possible outcome: that nothing happens and we continue as is.
Real “moderate Muslims” are silenced or murdered.
Last month, the Wall Street Journal published an interview with France's director of domestic intelligence, Patrick Calvar. “The confrontation is inevitable,” Mr. Calvar said. There are an estimated 15,000 Salafists among France's seven million Muslims, “whose radical-fundamentalist creed dominates many of the predominantly Muslim housing projects at the edges of cities such as Paris, Nice or Lyon. Their preachers call for a civil war, with all Muslims tasked to wipe out the miscreants down the street.”
These Salafists openly challenge France's way of life and do not make a secret of their willingness to overthrow the existing order in Europe through violent means, terror attacks and physical intimidation. But paradoxically, if the Islamists' threat to Europe were confined to the Salafists, it would be easier to defeat it.
There is in fact another threat, even more dangerous because it is more difficult to decipher. It has just been dubbed by the magazine Valeurs Actuelles, “the quiet conquest”. It is “moderate” Islam's sinuous project of producing submission. “Its ambition is clear: changing French society. Slowly but surely”.
That threat is personified in the main character of Michel Houellebecq's novel, Submission: Mohammed Ben Abbes, the “moderate” Muslim who becomes France's president and converts the state to Islam. And from where does President Ben Abbes start his Islamization? The Sorbonne University. It is already happening: Qatar recently made a significant donation to this famous university, to sponsor the education of migrants.
In France, the quiet conquest has the face of the Union of the Islamic Organizations of France (UOIF), which a Simon Wiesenthal Center report charged with “anti-Semitism, advocacy and financing of terrorism and call to Jihad… “
Not only does UOIF not encourage the integration of Moslems in France,” the report states, “it actually provides a nursery for the most radical Islamist positions.”
In Italy we have just witnessed the strategy of this “moderate Islam.” The largest and most influential Islamic organization, l'Unione delle comunit√† ed organizzazione islamiche in Italia (Ucoii), sponsored Milan's first Muslim councilwoman, Sumaya Abdel Qader, a veiled candidate of the center-left coalition. Qader's husband, Abdallah Kabakebbji, openly called for the destruction of the State of Israel: “It is a historical mistake, a scam”, he wrote on Facebook. His solution? “Ctrl + Alt + Delete”.
Qader won the race over a real moderate Muslim, the unveiled Somali activist, Maryan Ismail. I met Mrs. Ismail at a pro-Israel forum in Milan. After losing the election, she broke with Italy's Democratic Party in an open letter: “The Democratic Party has chosen to dialogue with obscurantist Islam. Once again, the souls of modern, plural and inclusive Islam were not heard”.
Take two “stars” of this French “moderate Islam.” The first one is Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, the motto of which is: “Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”
Ramadan does not hide in Raqqa or shoot at French citizens. By applying for French citizenship, he would like to become one of them. His office is in the Parisian suburb of Saint Denis; he has written 30 books and he has two million Facebook followers. Ramadan has academic chairs all over the world, he is the director of the Research Center for Islamic Law in Doha (Qatar) and the president of the European Muslim Network. He publicly campaigns for Islam along with Italy's former prime minister, Massimo D'Alema. Ramadan recently explained his vision for Europe and France: “Islam is a French religion and the French language is a language of Islam”.
Ramadan's project is not the hoped-for Europeanization of Islam, but the not-hoped-for frightful Islamization of Europe. He opposes the assimilation of Muslims into French culture and society. A few days before the election in Milan, Ramadan was in Italy to endorse the candidacy of Sumaya Abdel Qader.
The second French “star” is Dalil Boubakeur, the rector of the Grand Mosque of Paris. In 1989, Boubakeur justified the persecution of Salman Rushdie by Ayatollah Khomeini. In 2002, he testified for the prosecution against the writer Michel Houellebecq. In 2006, he sued Charlie Hebdo in court, after the publication of the Danish Mohammed cartoons. Last year, Boubakeur called for the conversion of churches into mosques and asked to “double” the number of mosques in France.

Dalil Boubakeur, rector of the Grand Mosque of Paris, last year called for the conversion of churches into mosques and asked to “double” the number of mosques in France. (Image source: TV5 Monde)
In the United Kingdom, mainstream Muslim organizations are dispensing “Islamic justice” through more than 85 sharia courts attached to mosques. Divorce, polygamy, adultery and wife-beating are only some of these courts' matters of jurisprudence. In Germany, vice-chancellor Sigmar Gabriel criticized Saudi Arabia for financing Islamic extremism in Europe. It is the same kingdom which last year offered to build 200 new mosques in Germany.
Qatar, with its Al Jazeera television megaphone, is also very active in sponsoring Muslim Brotherhood Islamic radicalism all over Europe. The Qatari royal family, for example, in 2015 donated £11 million to Oxford's St. Anthony's College, where Tariq Ramadan teaches. Qatar also announced that it was willing to spend $65 million in the French suburbs, home to the vast majority of the six million Muslims in France.
Today in Europe, several scenarios are possible, including the worst. Among them, there is a civil war, which many are beginning to talk about, including Patrick Calvar, the director of domestic intelligence. This is what the Islamic State is looking for: unleashing a blind repression so that the Muslim population will show solidarity with the revolutionary minority. Yet, there is still worse possible outcome: that nothing happens and we continue as is.
The end is more important than the means. The Islamic State has the same goal as most of the members of so-called “moderate Islam”: domination under the sharia. Many supposedly “moderate Muslims”, even if they do not commit violent acts themselves, support them quietly. They support them by not speaking out against them. If they do speak out against them, they usually do so in coded terms, such as that they are “against terrorism,” or that what concerns them about violent acts by Muslims is the possibility of a “backlash” against them.
Violent jihadis, however, are not the only means of transforming Europe, and perhaps are even counterproductive: they could awaken the nations they attack. Soft and more discreet means, such as social pressure and propaganda, are even more dangerous, and possibly even more effective: they are harder to see, such as the West's acceptance of dual judiciary and legal systems; sharia finance (if there had been a “Nazi finance” system, in which all financial transactions went to strengthening the Third Reich, what effect might that have had on World War II?), and the proliferation in the West of mosques and extremist Islamic websites. Although there are indeed many real “moderate Muslims”, there are also still many who are not.
To conservative Muslims, however, any Muslim who does not accept every word of Allah — the entire Koran — is not a true Muslim, and is open to charges of “apostasy”, the punishment for which is death. According to a leading Sunni theologian, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, based in Qatar, “If they [Muslims] had gotten rid of the punishment for apostasy, Islam would not exist today.”
That is why the late writer Oriana Fallaci once said to The New Yorker: “I do not accept the mendacity of the so-called Moderate Islam”. That is why real “moderate Muslims” are silenced or murdered.
This might summarize the current Islamic mainstream mentality: “Dear Europeans, continue to think about a shorter working week, early retirement, abortion on demand and adultery in the afternoon. With your laws, we will conquer you. With our laws, we will convert you”.
Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.
3)Al Sharpton And The Left Are Attacking Darryl Glenn! Leftist Race Hustlers Are Claiming That Darryl Glenn Is A Criminal Simply Because His Of His Violent Father! A Black Democrat Would Never Be Treated This Way! Liberals Will Do Anything To Attack Successful Black Conservatives! 
Darryl Glenn is under attack from the Democratic Party, Al Sharpton, and the liberal media. Many years ago in the 1980s, Darryl Glenn was questioned by the police regarding his violent father. Leftist activists and media elites have dug up the police reports and are trying to claim that Darryl Glenn is somehow a violent criminal! It is absolutely outrageous! Darryl Glenn was never convicted or charged with a crime. In fact, the police report had information from Darryl Glenn that was used to help prosecute his violent father! 

The leftist double standard is racist and disgusting. A black Democrat would never be treated this way. The truth is that the left is simply afraid of losing Democratic voters. They want to keep black voters on the Democratic plantation. Instead of applauding Darryl Glenn for escaping an abusive upbringing and achieving success, liberals are trying to tear him down! 
In the 1980s, Darryl Glenn's father was charged with domestic assault and now the left is claiming that Darryl Glenn is also a violent criminal. Nothing could be further from the truth! Darryl Glenn is an honorable veteran and small business owner. He is a lifelong conservative with strong traditional values. It is vile and disgusting that the left will criticize a hard working black man who has overcome obstacles and achieved great things. Liberals will do anything to attack a successful black man!

This election is going to be incredibly close. Current polls show that this race is statistically tied. However, most voters are still undecided and almost a majority of Colorado doesn't know about Darryl Glenn yet. In order to defeat incumbent Michael Bennet, it is crucial to inform every voter in Colorado about Darryl Glenn's bold conservative vision! Voters must be contacted, informed, reminded to vote! This isn't an easy task and Michael Bennett already has a massive million dollar war chest. Please help Darryl Glenn shock the political establishment and defeat Michael Bennet!

No comments: