Not everything needs to be political.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Abbas up to old tricks. Always wily, mostly wrong.
God only knows the pain he has brought to his people and caused the world and Israelis. He could have followed Sadat but was afraid of being killed. (See 1 and 1a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Has America become the magnet for world's mass illegal immigrants?(See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I was out of town when Notre Dame caught fire. What a sad tragedy. I never went inside but have been on the grounds many times. I hope God was not sending a signal of displeasure.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is no telling how much additional debt Democrats have caused due to their hatred of Trump and obstinate behaviour.
Pelosi can claim her Party is not a captive of the left because there are only 5 renegades but she is the one who appointed them to their prominent positions.
I previously warned the mass media would ultimately become the Democrat's biggest thorn. So it has come to be. Pelosi finds herself in the brier patch and that is where she belongs.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Certain Florida felons can now vote. (See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am posting this before the redacted Mueller report is released No evidence of collusion, no executive privilege asserted so, from a legal standpoint, it appears logically you can not obstruct something that did not occur legally..
The ten disputed issues regarding obstruction will be used by Democrats for political purposes to keep the sword hanging over Trump's head and by doing so they will continue to do a dis-service to the nation because they want to continue to hang doubt clouds over the office of the president out of hate and for political purposes.
Furthermore, if Mueller knew there was no collusion why did he persist in the investigation? (See 4 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
US publishes first map showing Golan as Israeli territory
Move comes 3 weeks after Trump recognizes Israeli sovereignty over Heights; Mideast envoy Greenblatt tweets picture of the map that also refers to West Bank as Israeli-occupied
The US has for the first time published a map showing the Golan Heights as Israeli territory, three weeks after President Donald Trump recognized Israeli sovereignty over the strategic plateau.
US Mideast envoy Jason Greenblatt tweeted a picture of the map on Tuesday, saying: “Welcome to the newest addition of our international maps system.”
The map shows the 1974 ceasefire line between Israel and Syria as a permanent border, whereas the border with Lebanon continues to be demarcated as the 1949 armistice line.
The map also notes that the West Bank is Israeli-occupied, with its final status to be determined in peace talks.
Benjamin Netanyahu is seen during a security tour in the Golan Heights, near Israel’s northern border with Syria, on April 11, 2016. (Kobi Gideon/GPO)
And it notes that while the US recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in 2017, it does not take a position on the boundaries of the holy city, which is also claimed by the Palestinians as the capital of a future state.
However, while the map was updated, text attached to the Israel entry in the latest CIA world factbook, which included the map, continued to call East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights “Israeli occupied.”
Trump’s formal recognition of Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan sparked widespread international condemnation. The announcement in late March was a major shift in American policy and gave Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a needed political boost ahead of April elections.
US President Donald Trump, seated, holds up a signed proclamation on the Golan Heights, alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, standing center, in the Diplomatic Reception Room at the White House in Washington, DC, March 25, 2019. Second from right is Trump’s Mideast envoy Jason Greenblatt and at right is US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman (Saul Loeb/AFP)
Israel captured the strategic plateau from Syria in the 1967 Six Day War and in 1981 effectively annexed the area, in a move never recognized by the rest of international community, which considers the Golan Heights to be occupied Syrian territory.
The map was published with the US indicating it may also be on board with Israel annexing West Bank settlements.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Friday said he did not believe Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s pre-election talk of extending Israeli sovereignty to all West Bank settlements would hurt the Trump administration’s long-gestating peace plan.
His comments would appear to indicate that the US plan does not provide for Palestinian statehood, or even for Palestinian control of substantive contiguous territory in the West Bank.
Asked during a CNN interview by anchor Jake Tapper whether he thought Netanyahu “vowing to annex the West Bank” could hurt the US proposal, Pompeo answered “I don’t.”
“I think that the vision that we’ll lay out is going to represent a significant change from the model that’s been used,” he added.
“We’ve had a lot of ideas for 40 years. They did not deliver peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians,” Pompeo said. “Our idea is to put forward a vision that has ideas that are new, that are different, that are unique, that tries to reframe and reshape what’s been an intractable problem.”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (R) and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (L) at the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City on March 21, 2019, during the second day of Pompeo’s visit as part of his five-day regional tour of the Middle East. (Kobi Gideon/GPO)
He said the Trump administration wanted “a better life” for both Israelis and Palestinians.
In interviews days before the elections, Netanyahu said he intended to gradually apply Israeli law to all settlements, and that he hoped he could do so with the agreement of the United States.
On Tuesday, a coalition of more than a dozen conservative groups, most of them Jewish, sent a letter to Trump tacitly asking him to respect a potential Israeli annexation of West Bank settlements.
The letter comes in response to a coalition of centrist and liberal groups who last week urged Trump not to recognize a potential Israeli West Bank annexation.
1a) PA foreign minister: Abbas ready to meet Netanyahu if Russia plays host
Riyad al-Malki tells Russian news outlet Palestinians will reject any peace proposal that ‘does not acknowledge the State of Palestine’s independence’
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is prepared to meet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if Russia hosts the gathering, PA Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki told Sputnik, a Russian state-run news site.
Palestinian officials have said that Abbas agreed to accept a Russian suggestion to meet Netanyahu in Moscow last year, but the prime minister turned it down.
The last known encounter between Abbas and Netanyahu was at the funeral of former prime minister Shimon Peres in September 2016, where the two briefly exchanged pleasantries.
The last known time Abbas and Netanyahu met formally for negotiations was in September 2010 in Jerusalem.
“Abbas is ready to meet Netanyahu without preconditions, if Moscow hosts this meeting,” PA Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki said in an interview with Sputnik published on Tuesday.
Malki met Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Moscow on Monday.
Russian President Vladimir Putin delivers a state-of-the-nation address in Moscow, Russia, February 20, 2019. (Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko/AP)
Abbas has previously demanded that Israel freeze settlement construction as a precondition to the resumption of negotiations between the Jewish state and the Palestinians.
Asked whether Netanyahu would be willing to meet Abbas in Moscow, a spokesman for the Prime Minister’s Office did not immediately respond.
Malki added that the Palestinians will reject any proposal to resolve the conflict “that does not acknowledge the State of Palestine’s independence.”
US President Donald Trump’s administration has said it intends to release a plan to resolve the conflict, but has not publicized the date it plans to do so.
While Trump has said he thinks the two-state solution, including the creation of a Palestinian state, “works best,” he has not committed to it.
The Washington Post reported on Monday that while the US administration’s apparently forthcoming plan “promises practical improvements in the lives of Palestinians,” it “is likely to stop short of ensuring a separate, fully sovereign Palestinians state,” citing people knowledgeable of its “main elements.”
The PA foreign minister also said that Abbas may visit Moscow in the next two to three months.
Abbas last visited Moscow in July 2018, when he met Russian President Vladimir Putin and attended the World Cup.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)Are There Any Limits to Illegal Immigration?
By Victor Davis Hanson
Poted ByRuth King
The U.S.-Mexican border is essentially wide open.
Why? Because there is a general expectation in Mexico and Latin America that American immigration law is unenforced. Or it is so bizarre that simple illegal entry almost always ensures temporary legal residence, pending an asylum hearing.
A scheduled asylum hearing, in turn, is seen by border crossers as a mere formality to be ignored. The popular perception on the border, then, is to stick one foot illegally onto U.S. soil, and, presto, win permanent residence for you and any family members who wish to follow.
In an age of 500 sanctuary city and county jurisdictions, few illegal aliens believe they will ever be deported permanently, even if they have been apprehended committing serious crimes. There is also a general perception among would-be illegal entrants that prominent Democrats and progressives welcome their massive influxes as useful and will do their best to ensure illegal immigration continues unabated.
There is also the assumption that the greater the chaos at the border, the less likely Congress will take bipartisan action to end it. After all, 2020 is an election year and progressives are in no mood to hand Trump the semblance of a legislative victory. This fact is also known to would-be border crossers.
Illegal alien families sense that they are vital to progressive agendas of fundamentally transforming the country by importing first-generation, loyal constituents—a sentiment that is slowly replacing the prior idea of mostly young men coming to work off the books. In an increasingly tribal America, they expect on arrival to be recalibrated instantly from Mexican nationals without any experience of America into “Latinos” and “Hispanics” with historical grievances against the majority population of United States, to be remedied by reparatory hiring and admission, and facilitated by ethnic operatives.
Some polls in the past have suggested that a third of Mexico’s population would immigrate to the United States if possible. The percentages of would-be immigrants from Central America are likely to be even higher. In theory, 50 million could cross the border in the next two decades, which poses the question: what are the theoretical limits on illegal immigration?
When would it cease? When 50 million or 60 million or maybe 80 million foreign nationals entered illegally, without meritocratic criteria or much diversity?
Historically massive influxes of migrants from one nation to another are reflections of imbalances in fertility and demography, and radical political, economic, and cultural asymmetries. People vote en masse with their feet to escape violence, oppression and poverty to flee to a different, indeed antithetical, system that promises them greater security, freedom, and economic opportunity.
Think in the past of mainland China versus Hong Kong, East versus West Germany, North versus South Korea, or Europe versus North Africa and the Middle East. Or consider why indigenous residents of Oaxaca would give up their homeland to travel 2,000 miles to a quite foreign country whose traditions, language, culture, history, and values were often antithetical to their own.
Saturation Nowhere in SightMass population movements end (or never start) if there is border symmetry, in the fashion that Canadian and American immigrants roughly balance each other out.
The promise that Mexico and Central America in the early 21th century would obtain rough economic parity with the United States has not happened, despite progress there and lower birth rates in the United States. But what has transpired is a radical increase in cartel and gang violence, endemic corruption and general lowering of the quality of life south of the border.
Under such conditions, the logical limits of immigration can be calibrated not so much by whether countries south of the border reach parity with American standards of living, freedom, security, and quality of life. But rather the current issue is whether regions of America, especially the American Southwest become roughly indistinguishable from Latin America and Mexico, and therefore in terms of economic opportunity, safety, and quality of life do not offer that much of an improvement—or at least not such a radical margin of enhancement to justify abandoning one’s homeland.
In such an equation, the more that illegal aliens arrive, swamp social services and tax law enforcement, the more that they create ethnic enclaves that resist rapid assimilation and the more that they sense that their hosts see them most useful as an identity politics constituency, then the more parts of the southwestern United States will seem more like Mexico, and perhaps to the point of eventually diminishing illegal immigration.
No one knows what the saturation point might be of illegal and unassimilated immigration, but influxes are now approximating each month a mid-sized American city. In theory, we may already be nearing a point where many immigrants are starting to see their new homes as not all that different from Mexico—although in general far more expensive.
How Illegal Immigration Changes UsIllegal immigration and its effects on a community are incremental but steady. This past week, two miles from my home, an illegal alien fled the scene of an accident that he had caused, which killed a pregnant Mexican-American and critically injured her 11-year-old daughter. He is still at large. Within a 100-mile radius of central California, at least five citizens were killed by illegal alien gunmen in the last four months. When I go to town to drop off dry cleaning, I rarely hear English spoken. Almost all the stores in the shopping center (where I have gone for 50 years) have Spanish names. Few English signs are apparent or needed.
The formerly rich diverse community of Japanese-, Armenian-, Basque-, Portuguese-, Mexican- and Scandinavian-Americans have long since vanished. I stopped riding a bike in my rural environs four years ago, given the packs of unlicensed and unvaccinated dogs, and the owners indifference to their attacks on passersby.From experience of driving each week across the Central Valley to the California coast, I assume that about one of every 20 cars at rural intersections will run the stop sign. I make the further assumption that if I am hit, the driver of the other car may well flee the scene and has no license, insurance or registration—and has never felt any real need to obtain them.
In my immediate rural environs, there is now the following: 1) an illegal dump of various junk, wrecked cars, and discarded household items; 2) a strange open-air vacant storage lot dotted with porta potties, trailers and assorted junk spread over five acres; 3) a bizarre sort of camp, in which lean-tos, shacks, and tents are hidden among an old persimmon orchard, where no one quite knows how many such structures are hidden inside the mysterious grove; 4) a permanent hanging gardens of Babylon-type of yard sale where a home’s trees and bushes are littered with hanging clothing and flotsam and jetsam, some of them rotting from the recent rains; 5) a former backyard that is now a small goat mart; 6) an unlicensed, ad hoc outdoor barber shop; 7) an unlicensed, ad hoc outdoor daycare center.
I’ll stop there, but the avenue where I have lived for 65 years in terms of the fundamental metrics of civilization—sanitation, single-family zoning, building codes, mosquito abatement, dog licensing and registration, and sanctions for illicit activity—has regressed a half-century or more.
Officials apparently assume that visiting these places can become a lose-lose-lose situation: the miscreant will not comply with citations, the bureaucratic costs of enforcement are not offset by collectable fines, and the touchy subject of illegal immigration may earn either unfavorable press coverage or censure from politically sensitive county and local officials. In other words, we are a world away from Nancy Pelosi’s gated Napa estate, or Dianne Feinstein’s $40 million hilltop Pacific Heights mansion but not from the results of their ideology.
Future Without LawLife down the street is conducted mostly on the premises of rural Mexico, where one does what one pleases or must in terms of water, power, sanitation, business, commerce, leisure, and pets, without audit from authorities.
If one reads either the local or regional papers, it is composed of stories about one of three themes.
One, the disturbing litany of DUIs, gang stabbings and shootings, fatal hit-and-run accidents, police shootings of armed suspects, high-speed chases, robberies, and drug busts.
Two, there are also many human interest inspirational stories of illegal aliens from Mexico who are running successful businesses, whose children are star athletes or students. The subtext is not that they are doing the exceptional things other Americans are not doing, but that they merit special attention and approbation because of their immigrant status and the obstacles they have overcome.
Three, the grievance or victimization meme: the lawsuit against law enforcement, the filing of a bias claim against the county, the firing of an official for some alleged insensitivity, or the injustice of some agency that has curtailed support from, tried to deport, or was somehow biased against, an illegal alien.
The point is, that unlike the past, almost every new story is grounded in some sort of overt ethnic context, and ultimately related to illegal immigration and its effects.
Latino and Hispanic citizens, to the extent that they identify as such, may in the American Southwest be the key to the future of illegal immigration. So far, they have put up with higher taxes, swamped social services, gang activity, hit and run accidents and subpar schools that are the wages of illegal immigration, on the theory of ethnic solidarity and of general sympathy with the underclass of which many now in the middle class were once a part.
But no one wishes to have a neighbor who is an MS-13 member, or schools where non-English speakers hold back collective learning, or to be hit by an unlicensed driver who flees the scene. For successfully assimilated Hispanics there is a growing resentment that they are being used to support political agendas that are not conducive to improving the quality of life in their own backyards.
Translated that means, for example, that California’s high income, sales, and gas taxes, along with sky-high housing, electricity, and gasoline costs, do not make one sympathetic to millions who arrive illegally and without English skills or a high school diploma but with plenty of instant needs for state services.
In sum, either when Mexico resembles California, Texas, Arizona, or New Mexico, or when these border states resemble Mexico, then illegal immigration will likely cease. Conventional wisdom has always postulated that declining birth rates, economic reforms, and globalization south of the border will discourage Mexicans and Central Americans from coming north as rough parity is achieved.
But it may be that as so many have already come north—and they are coming in increasing numbers—and as so few feel a need to assimilate, that an impoverished “north” is no longer a promised land and thus not necessarily a place for which it is worth abandoning one’s homeland.
The other day I noticed for the first time that I have a lot more fear of an oncoming car in rural California than I had of intersections in Libya; a lot more worries about a wild stray dog wandering into my yard than I did while living in Greece; a lot more anxiety of being shot or robbed than I did when visiting the current Middle East; and a lot less hope of being treated promptly in extremis at the local emergency room than I would have expected in Eastern Europe.
In that strange sense, I guess I have some hope that illegal immigration will soon taper off.
Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)
1.5 million felons can now vote in Florida because of these men
MIAMI — Neil Volz was a man who had it all; Desmond Meade was a man who never had much of anything. Both of them were convicted of felonies and hit the depths of despair before realizing they could help others like them.
When the two met in 2015, it was a natural fit.
“Us meeting I don’t think was no coincidence,” Meade said. “When you put out your vibes into the universe, it tends to come back to you, you know?”
Now, thanks to their efforts, a newly passed referendum means 1.5 million convicted felons will be able to take part in Florida’s elections come November.
Five years ago, Meade founded the Floridians for a Fair Democracy to help felons like himself regain the right to vote. Volz joined the crusade one year later.
But the stories of how they got here couldn’t be more different.
Volz was in his second year at Ohio State 25 years ago when he started volunteering for his state senator, Bob Ney. When Ney won a seat in Congress during the big wave year for Republicans in 1994, Volz followed him to DC “for what I thought was my dream job.”
He quickly ascended in DC, eventually becoming Ney’s chief of staff and a successful lobbyist. But, in his work for the notorious lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Volz found himself immersed in a shocking corruption scandal, cooperating with the FBI and pleading guilty to a felony count of conspiracy.
“I lost my high-paying job, my marriage, my lifestyle and any chance of a career in politics. I was a broke man,” he said.
Meade, meanwhile, never had much to lose — a misspent youth that became a misspent time in the Army, which threw him out on a larceny charge. By then he was addicted to cocaine and trouble.
After the loss of his mother, Meade says he was a man without a home and a moral center. “In 2001, I was sentenced to 15 years for possession of a firearm. I only did three of those years. But when I got out, I still had the drug problem. Eventually, it led me to standing in front of railroad tracks, waiting on the train to come so I could jump in front of it in August of 2005.”
For whatever reason, the train never showed up that day. Instead, Meade walked to a rehab center two blocks away, got clean, went back to school, got two degrees and then enrolled in law school.
In 2015, both men found each other at a Florida Gulf Coast University event on felony voting rights where Meade was speaking.
“I walked in, and my instincts were that it was kind of progressive, right?” Volz said. “I’m a 20-plus year conservative, but I sat down and within 30 seconds, I felt like I belonged there.”
Volz joined Meade, and both lobbied to get the referendum on the ballot, restoring voting rights to felons who have completed their sentences with just two exceptions: “There are no voting rights for people who have been convicted of murder or any sex offenses,” Volz said.
Known as Amendment 4, the referendum required at least 60 percent voter support — and got 65 percent, more than any statewide candidate earned in Florida’s November elections. That’s a lot in a state where every vote has counted since the 2000 presidential election when George W. Bush was handed the presidency over Al Gore.
Over 6 million people in the US with criminal records have lost their right to vote, according to data compiled by The Sentencing Project, a Washington-based advocacy group. More than 1.5 million of them live in Florida, more than any other state in the country.
It’s hard to predict which political party will most benefit from the referendum, both men said.
Meade, who is African-American, says the people who assume the amendment will benefit Democrats — because blacks are predominantly incarcerated and more likely to vote blue — have it all wrong.
“We know that African-Americans only accounted for like a third of the [newly] eligible voters,” he said. The “overall majority of folks who were impacted by this are white.”
And neither party should make assumptions about how newly enfranchised felons will vote, no matter their background.
“These political parties do have to earn our vote,” Meade said. In fact, “they probably have to work harder for our vote than anybody else’s because we’ve known what it’s like to not have it.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4) Escape From Collusion Hell
The bet that Mueller would nail Trump didn’t pay off.
We’re left with the rubble.
On Jan. 10, 2017, a news-and-entertainment website called BuzzFeed published the text of the Steele dossier. Simultaneously, most of the U.S. media began running stories based on anonymous intelligence sources suggesting the possibility of a link during the previous year’s election between U.S. President-elect Trump and Vladimir Putin. This came to be known as “the Russian collusion narrative.” The Steele dossier was the narrative’s Rosetta Stone, the reason to believe all the other stories might be true.
On page 9 of the Steele dossier—if you’ve never read it, now’s the time—the following statement appears:
“Speaking separately, also in July 2016, an official close to Presidential Administration Head, S. IVANOV, confided in a compatriot that a senior colleague in the Internal Political Department of the PA, DIVYEKIN (nfd) also had met secretly with PAGE on his recent visit. Their agenda had included DIVEYKIN raising a dossier of ‘kompromat’ the Kremlin possessed . . .”
All 35 pages of the Steele dossier read that way. It is almost perfectly analogous to the children’s party game of telephone, when an adult whispers something into a 5-year-old’s ear and it is passed on silently to seven other children, who all laugh at the discrepancy between what went in and what came out.
But the American people aren’t laughing. A children’s telephone game of whispered half-facts played by elites at the highest level of America’s institutions is why the U.S. political system has been in hell from 2017 until the release of the Mueller report.
How this hell got started was predictable. Days before his inauguration, the 45th U.S. president, personally offended by his media coverage, started calling the press “fake news.”
A famous saying in American politics is, “Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel.” Politicians and the press have always understood this modus vivendi, which resembles the civilizing, unwritten rules of life in the mafia.
When someone recently gunned down a crime boss on Staten Island in what looked like a classic mob hit, the first thing the cops noted was that the killer had broken the rule that you never shoot a guy in front of his own house.
With the Trump-is-Putin’s-stooge narrative, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC began writing their own rules. Hitting Mr. Trump with the collusion stories in early 2017 was one thing. He hit them with “fake news,” so they hit back. Politics ain’t patty cake.
But past some point, the battle between Mr. Trump and his opposition turned into something not seen before in American political life. Many of the country’s primary institutions arrayed themselves against an elected U.S. president, who they said, explicitly and constantly, was a mortal threat to “democracy.”
These institutions—the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the intelligence services, the press, members of Congress and cultural elites—believed or talked themselves into believing that taking down Donald Trump would be worth whatever damage this effort was doing to at least half the population’s faith in them.
It was not worth it. And now the country is left with the collusion narrative’s rubble.
The Trump chase has changed the standards of American reporting forever. Asking the public to lend credibility to nameless sources, once rare, has become normal, as in, “requested anonymity in order to speak freely.” Routine guessing or insinuation has equal weight in stories with finding facts, as in: “It is unclear what this may mean.” Indeed.
No surprise, the Democrats’ ardent defense of the special prosecutor’s independence is now seen as bad faith. They didn’t care about transparency. They wanted a result. As soon as Attorney General William Barr released his letter summarizing the Mueller report, their own narrative shifted from collusion to “coverup.”
Now Democratic House committees are spraying subpoenas, like the Orkin Man, into every cranny of Mr. Trump’s business and financial life. Indiscriminate subpoenas are also likely to become a routine postcollusion standard in American politics.
The Trump presidency was always going to be a heavy load for the country to process without the Russia jihad. Even before the collusion narrative emerged, recall the generalized anxiety at the thought that some ruralized, lower-class version of H.L. Mencken’s booboisie was taking over the country. What’s worse, they won!
The Trump presidency was never a threat to democracy. It was, and remains, a daily violation of etiquette. Rather than fight Trumpism on the policy and political merits, the appalled opposition bet on the long shot of Robert Mueller proving the Oval Office violator has been in Vladimir Putin’s pocket. If successful, that would have discredited whatever happened in the 2016 election. The grievances and realities revealed in the election’s results would just kind of . . . go away.
Two hellish years later, and with Mr. Mueller’s investigation complete, Donald Trump is still president. Democrats and the media should give the rest of us a break. Find a more civilized strategy to fight the Trump presidency. Like mafia rules.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment