.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
%20(1)%20(4)%20(1).jpg)
.jpg)
ESG and Davos elites will be the next crippler of our freedoms and it already is strangling corporations world wide.
+++
Hypocritical Elites Fueling Collapse of the Political ‘Center’
The destruction of institutional trust in the West has been well earned: It represents the natural result of policy elites lying to those they supposedly serve.
The fals ecenter cannot hold.
In France, President Macron has now lost his majority in the National Assembly; his party holds 245 seats in the lower house, but the Right holds 150 and the Left 131. In Colombia, former M-19 guerrilla and Marxist Gustavo Petro has now become the president of the country, replacing more establishment, Keynesian liberal rule. In America, the supposed center within both parties has been increasingly supplanted by anti-establishment forces on both sides.
None of this should be shocking, given the destruction of institutional trust throughout the West. And the destruction of that institutional trust has been well earned: It represents the natural result of policy elites lying to those they supposedly serve.
Our policy elites maintain that they favor free markets while simultaneously battling against free markets on behalf of a world-changing ideology; they proclaim that they value traditional religion while fighting to undermine its most fundamental foundations; they argue that the world order must be maintained while shying away from the reality of international politics.
The World Economic Forum, supposedly a repository of free market thinking, is headed by Klaus Schwab, who declares that he and his friends will “serve not only self-interest, but we serve the community.” He then proceeds to leverage economic power on behalf of their preferred ideological outcomes.
The result is both economic failure and ideological failure. Take, for example, the Biden administration’s simultaneous demand that oil companies ramp up production and that we completely undermine oil and gas development over the next few years in order to fight global warming. Or, more immediately, take the German attempts to “green” their own economy while quietly outsourcing energy production to Russia — a policy so egregiously stupid that it has now resulted in Germany firing up coal plants again, now that Russia has cut off the oil supply.
On the social front, our institutional elite declare fealty to traditional institutions — church, family, localism — and then simultaneously insist that society remake itself in the most radical possible image. The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, declares her fealty to Catholicism in the same sentence in which she militantly maintains her support for abortion-on-demand; President Biden proclaims his own religiosity while simultaneously deploying his Department of Justice to target states that seek to prevent the confusion and harm of children based on nonsensical gender theory.
On the foreign policy front, our institutional leaders tell us that we must uphold the world order, then refuse to accept the consequences of that leadership. They rail against the evils of the Saudi Arabian regime while simultaneously intoning that the West must sign a deal with the Iranian terror regime, then end up visiting the Saudis to beg for more oil production.
They declare their undying support for the Ukrainian government, then become wishy-washy about providing either the support necessary for its victory or an exit plan in case victory is unachievable. They look askance at the communist Chinese threat to the Republic of China on Taiwan, then teach proper transgender pronoun use to members of the Navy.
In short, our institutional elites rely on the power of civilizational foundations that long predate them — free markets, religious values, military strength — to prop up failing ideas that undermine those foundations. The result is failure. The left looks at the prevailing elite consensus and declares it dishonest: If the elites’ principles mattered, they would fight free markets, religious values and military strength. The right looks at the prevailing elite consensus and feels the same way: If the elites put aside their ideological commitments to leftism, they’d cement our civilizational foundations rather than keep eroding them.
Perhaps the center isn’t holding because it shouldn’t hold. That center has sought to enshrine its own power by taking from both the left and the right; it has no coherent ideology of its own. And that false center is now coming apart with centrifugal force, torn between those who believe in the fundamental institutions of the West and those who wish to see them supplanted.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yesterday (6/22) I had two appointments. One was for a check with my ENT to see if the tube they put in my ear was still in place. Naturally, I had to fill out the same forms I always fill out and no one reads. When I came to the section about my gender, I told the lady I was not sure what my gender was anymore. She replied that I still looked like a male.
Later in the day, I went for my second COVID Pfizer Booster and I had to verify my gender again and I said the same thing I had earlier and received the same answer.
I guess I am still a male but can still go to the ladie's rest room and keep my beard. Ain't life just great?
+++
‘Ridiculously Useless’: Navy Seal From Team That Killed Bin Laden Blasts Navy Instructional Video On Gender Pronouns\
By Hank Berrien
A Navy Seal famed for being a member of the team that killed arch-terrorist Osama bin Laden fired off a blistering message for the U.S. Navy, which created an instructional video about using the proper “gender pronouns.”
The Navy’s video, modeled after a children’s show, is meant is meant to emphasize “the importance of using correct pronouns as well as polite etiquette when you may not be sure of someone’s pronouns,” according to the Navy, The Washington Free Beacon reported
Robert J. O’Neill, who served on the team that killed Bin Laden, snapped, “Let me make it simple for the entire @USNavy: Your pronouns are shipmate/shipmates. There. I just saved the taxpayers millions by avoiding ridiculously useless training. Anchors aweigh.”
The video features two engineers from the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Conchy Vasquez and Jony Rozon. Rozon says, “Hi. My name is Jony and I use he/him pronouns.” Vasquez follows, “Hi. My name is Conchy and I use she/her pronouns.”
“Using the right pronouns is a really simple way to affirm somebody’s identity,” Rozon says loftily. “It is a signal of acceptance and respect.”
“If it is a signal of acceptance and respect, how do we go about creating a safe space for everybody,” Vasquez asks.
“That’s a good question. A really good way to do that is to use inclusive language,” Rozon replies. “Instead of saying something like, ‘Hey, guys,’ you could say, ‘Hey everyone,’ or ‘Hey team.’”
“But what would I do if I mis-gender someone,” Rozon queries.
“I think the first thing to recognize is that it’s not the end of the world,” Vasquez smiles. “you correct yourself and move on or you accept the correction and move on. The most important thing I can tell you is you don’t put the burden of making you feel good about your mistake on the person you just mis-gendered.”
In June 2021, O’Neill slammed President Biden after Biden claimed at a press conference that white supremacists were a greater terrorism threat than al-Qaeda.
“We must not give hate a safe harbor. As I said in my address to the joint session of Congress, according to the Intelligence Community, terrorism from white supremacy is the most lethal threat to the homeland today, not ISIS, not Al-Qaeda — white supremacists,” Biden said. “That’s not me. That’s the intelligence community under both Trump and under my administration.”
O’Neill fired back, ‘This is the most dangerously inaccurate statement I have ever heard from a president. More to follow, I’m sure.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
They Questioned Gender-Affirming Care. Then Their Kids Were Kicked Out of School.
Paul and Beka Sinclair didn’t like that their kids’ pricey private school was teaching first graders about 'deconstructing the gender binary.'
By Leighton Woodhouse
“Identity flags” planted on the hillside at Marin Country Day School for Pride Week. (via MCDS Instagram)
On May 25, Paul and Rebeka Sinclair pulled their minivan over to the side of the road, just north of Lake Tahoe, and logged onto a Zoom with Katherine Dinh, the head of the Marin Country Day School.
“Today was the last day of school for your children, Charlotte and Carter,” Dinh informed the couple. The Sinclairs—she’s 37; he’s 51—had been driving home from a vacation to celebrate their anniversary. Dinh appeared to be reading a script. Two MCDS board members joined her on the call but stayed quiet. “Please do not contact any other school employees, particularly Charlotte and Carter’s teachers, as your reaching out to them will cause them further stress,” Dinh continued. “The two of you are not to be on campus again.”
It was the closing act of a year-long drama between the Sinclairs and MCDS, which charges $40,000 per student per year and had been teaching first and second graders about “deconstructing the gender binary”—the idea that there’s no such thing as girls or boys, just a spectrum of relative girlness and boyness.
The Sinclairs weren’t the only parents who had protested the new gender-identity curriculum—most families in their daughter’s class were upset and had been talking about it among themselves. But the Sinclairs had been unwilling to stay quiet. As a result, administrators had suggested that they were homophobic and accused them of tarnishing MCDS’s reputation. (An MCDS attorney had accused the Sinclairs of “defamation” for accusing MCDS of “predatory ‘grooming’ of children.” The Sinclairs never made that accusation.) Friends had stopped replying to their texts. Teachers said they felt unsafe around them. When word got out about why Charlotte, 8, and Carter, 5, had been kicked out, the Sinclairs had to decide whether they could stay in the Bay Area.
“I had no problem being a pariah in Marin,” Beka said. “We were worried about raising our kids long term in an area that was embracing these destructive ideologies.”
Beka first glimpsed what was going on in the fall of 2020. Charlotte was in the first grade then, and the students were still in remote learning, and she saw the teacher read the kids Ibram X. Kendi’s “Antiracist Baby.” She didn’t like Kendi’s ideas, and she emailed Dinh and Stephanie Deitz, the head of the lower school, to let them know.
A few weeks later, one of Charlotte’s teachers asked the kids to introduce their stuffed animals with their pronouns. “The six-year-olds were like, ‘What’s a pronoun?’” Beka said.
A former MCDS teacher whose daughter attended the school said his little girl was similarly confused when MCDS “started introducing gender, and you can be whoever you want, and it’s fluid. She started taking that on.”
The former teacher, who declined to speak openly, said his daughter was hardly alone. A group of girls in her class started to think of themselves as gay, and then transgender. By the fourth grade, his daughter was “dating” other girls in her class. By sixth grade—last year—she had adopted male pronouns and a boy’s name, and had started wearing a breast binder.
“You could see the old going away,” the former teacher said. “It was intense. And it was just sobering to go to these meetings week after week after week, and just talk about the same thing over and over.”
Then, one day in 2021, when everyone was back on campus, Beka noticed that all the American flags had disappeared. She didn’t say anything to MCDS. It felt important, but it also felt a little weird to bring up.
The school, Paul said, seemed intent on teaching kids to feel bad about who they were—whether it was being white, or American, or a boy or a girl.
By early 2022—Charlotte was now in the second grade—MCDS parents started noticing more red flags, according to parents I spoke to and others connected to the school. One of the children wondered what they were supposed to call their stuffed animals, since they had never asked them whether they were boys or girls. Another couldn’t reconcile his interest in unicorns with his love of sports.
(Several parents I reached out to indicated that they wanted to talk but were scared. One father said he’d call me from a pay phone, if only there were pay phones.)
Parents started to hear about weird classroom exercises designed to force the seven- and eight-year-olds to decide how they identified: They were asked which gender they “felt like.” Or to pick the pronoun that seemed right to them. Or to say which toys seemed more like boy toys or girl toys.
There were three classes in the second grade, with each class comprising about 20 students. Out of that, there was a core group of more than a dozen parents who were the angriest. But no one would speak up. It didn’t matter that most of the parents were affluent. They feared school administrators. They fretted that MCDS would say bad things about their kids or deny admission to their kids’ younger siblings or not write recommendations for their kids if they tried to transfer to another school. “In these elite social circles, there’s so much social capital placed into getting into these elite schools,” Beka said.
Finally, this core group of parents turned to Rob Boutet, the vice president of the school’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee and a fellow parent. They were upset that nobody had told them what was going on, that they had to find out about it from their children.
On March 2, Boutet emailed Dinh, the head of the school. “The curriculum at MCDS,” Boutet wrote, “seems to be based on trendy political theory instead of pedagogy that has strong empirical support.”
Boutet added: “The majority of the families have and are witnessing their children experiencing high levels of stress, pain, sadness and asking questions that many parents are not ready or equipped to answer and all because of the Gender self identity activity.”
In an email to parents, Dinh explained that, as early as kindergarten, “some children do not identify within a gender binary.” MCDS, she said, sought to “affirm gender identity.”
In a subsequent email to Boutet, Dinh said that parents anonymously protesting the curriculum had left many MCDS faculty “with feelings of unsafety,” especially those, she said, who were LGBTQ+.
A mnth later, Boutet was kicked off the DEI Committee. (He declined to comment.)
Frustrated, the Sinclairs applied for Charlotte and Carter to attend Mark Day School, another private school in Marin County. They were accepted for the upcoming fall semester.
But Paul wasn’t content to leave it at that.
Hedidn’t think of himself as a political person, but he wanted other parents to know what was happening at MCDS. “I’m from Canada,” he told me. “I view myself as a centrist. I am by no means—well, let’s just say I’m not a Republican.” But he was upset. He didn’t want his kids hearing about all this stuff at such an early age, and no one had bothered to ask him or any other parents how they felt. The head of the school didn’t seem to care at all about parents’ concerns.
Without Beka’s knowledge, Paul sent several internal MCDS emails to Undercover Mother, an online group that exposes what it views as left-wing indoctrination in private schools. He hoped to cast a spotlight on the new thinking that had gripped the administration.
That was when everything ratcheted up super fast:
Undercover Mother began blasting out unsolicited mass emails to MCDS parents—attacking Dinh and the school’s board of trustees. The school surreptitiously launched an investigation. The investigation revealed that Paul had leaked the MCDS emails to Undercover Mother. (Administrators had made subtle changes to emails sent to different parents, and it was clear that the emails Undercover Mother was reprinting could only have come from him.)
Then, Dinh reached out to the Sinclairs to schedule the Zoom call so she could let them know their children would be barred from attending the last few weeks of school—and then the Sinclairs hired Republican powerbroker and super-lawyer Harmeet Dhillon, in San Francisco, to represent them. Two days later, Dhillon blasted off a letter accusing MCDS of the “baseless expulsion of innocent children in retaliation for parents expressing an opposing viewpoint.”
On June 3, Drew Davis, an attorney representing MCDS, sent Dhillon a letter that seemed to blame the Sinclairs not for simply leaking emails to Undercover Mother but actually concocting the whole anti-MCDS campaign.
“I had two friends meet me for a walk,” Beka said. “They were like, ‘I can’t believe everyone thinks you wrote those emails.’ At the time, end of school parties were happening, and everyone was talking about it.”
Beka felt compelled to set the record straight. On June 7, she and Paul emailed the whole MCDS community. They wanted everyone to know that they were just concerned parents, that they didn’t like what was happening, that they were angry that their kids were being spoon fed this stuff without parents knowing, but that they hadn’t written the Undercover Mother emails.
Then, on June 12, Joe Harvey, the head of the Mark Day School, emailed the Sinclairs. Harvey said he had read Beka’s email to the MCDS community. Quoting from Beka’s email, he said, “We are now understandably concerned about your questioning of the ‘science around human identity development’ and your assertion that there is a ‘political motive to deconstruct the gender binary.’” Harvey said that “reasonable people” could be “offended by your presence on campus.” He concluded that the school felt compelled to rescind Charlotte’s and Carter’s admission. They would not be getting their $11,700 deposit back.
Kelly Watson, an MCDS spokeswoman, declined to answer my questions. Nor would members of the MCDS board of trustees comment.
Another parent at MCDS lamented what had happened. “It takes a lot of courage to be a champion of our children’s well being when the main priority of those that we have entrusted with our children’s education is not our children,” the parent said. “The Sinclairs have been very brave to have exposed and called this out. We stand by them, admire their courage and are grateful that they put children first.”
A parent of students at another Marin school said: “We all experience this very progressive, liberal lifestyle that I love. But that open-mindedness is turning into homogeneity. We want our kids to be critical thinkers. We want diversity of thought. But if we’re teaching them there’s only one way, and that you’re at risk if you disagree—I think that’s the last thing we want to teach our kids.”
Neither Beka nor Paul was sure what came next. The private schools were obviously not an option. Public school might work, but their reputation had been “totally trashed,” Beka said.
In their June 7 email to the MCDS community, the Sinclairs voiced regret. “We are apologetic for how unsettling the undercovermothers emails were to our community,” they said.
But most of all, they were worried about their kids. “Holding my daughter crying her eyes out, telling her she couldn’t go to school to say goodbye to friends and teachers—I hated that,” Beka said. “She was begging me one day to go to the bus stop to say goodbye to the other kids. She didn’t understand—she couldn’t understand—that that just wasn’t possible. The last thing I wanted was someone saying something awful to her because they’d been told her mommy had the wrong opinion.”
The Sinclairs recently went into escrow on a home in Newport Beach. This fall, their kids will enroll in public school in Southern California. They hope public schools are still accountable to parents. If it turns out they’re not, they hope they won’t be shamed for voicing their opinion. They don’t want to move again.
Beka got angry when she thought about what had happened: “You can’t say obvious, uncontroversial things anymore. We’re asked to lie over and over, and because we all do it so much we seem to have forgotten that that’s what we’re doing, that we’re taking part in a charade.”
She was done with taking part in the charade. “Really, what I want is not to feel like I'm on an ideological island, like I'm crazy for having an opinion that other people don't have, and for being punished for that. This is not how people outside elite culture were raised. But elite culture doesn’t care about open or liberal society. It cares about power, and it will throw everything else away before it gives that up. It will gaslight everyone else into submission.”
Read more of Leighton Woodhouse’s work here.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We now have a reasonable gun bill that solves nothing because the problem is un-solvable. The best thing about the bill is it was only 80 pages and passed before anyone had time to read it.
+++
A Sensible Senate Gun Deal
The bill focuses on denying guns to those who pose a serious risk, offering money to states for red-flag laws.
The Editorial Board
The Senate voted 64-34 late Tuesday to debate a bipartisan gun violence bill, and its principal virtue is that it focuses on the source of too many mass shootings: young, troubled men.
The bill covers three main areas: money for states to implement so-called red-flag laws and beef up mental-health services; money for enhanced school safety; and additional scrutiny of gun buyers who are under the age of 21 or domestic abusers, as well as enhanced penalties for purchasing a gun as a straw buyer or trafficking in guns.
The Senate deal is a long way from the gun-control package that Speaker Nancy Pelosi rushed through the House two weeks ago. That bill is a nonstarter in the Senate, with some Democrats and nearly all Republicans opposed. GOP negotiators led by Texas Sen. John Cornyn also blocked several Democratic Senate demands, including a ban on the purchase of so-called assault weapons for anyone under age 21, licensing requirements, and mandatory waiting periods for all buyers.
One useful provision in the bill would correct a hole in background-check screening for those under 21. The current system doesn’t access juvenile records, though those records often contain mental-health or criminal histories that would bar an adult from obtaining a firearm. Mental-health problems often appear before age 18, and mass shooters with disturbing records have bought guns legally.
The compromise will push into the background-check system only juvenile records that are “disqualifying” for a gun purchase under current federal firearms statutes. There are no mandatory waiting periods, though the FBI would have up to 10 days to investigate possibly disqualifying juvenile records. Eighteen-year-olds with no troubling histories will have no difficulty passing the background check.
The deal would also give money to states to implement red-flag laws, which let courts remove firearms from individuals deemed a danger to themselves or others. The state laws must contain due-process protections—including the right to an in-person hearing, to know the evidence used to justify a red-flag order, and to have counsel present. States that don’t pass red-flag laws can use the money for other crisis-intervention programs, such as veterans, drug or mental-health courts. The legislation also devotes $240 million to mental-health support for children, $60 million to better train primary care providers in mental-health issues, and $150 million for suicide prevention.
The bill also changes the background system’s “boyfriend loophole.” Currently, only domestic abusers who are married to, living with, or have a child with a victim are barred from obtaining a firearm, and the left wants that definition expanded. The bill expands this to cover those in a “dating relationship,” defined as individuals who “have or have recently had a continuing serious relationship of a romantic or intimate nature.” The change won’t be retroactive, and the bill lets certain first-time offenders regain the ability to purchase after five years.
The one sour note is the rush to pass the bill. Negotiators had barely unveiled the 80 pages of text on Tuesday before Majority Leader Chuck Schumer held the vote to proceed. Democrats want to move on to another tax-and-spend reconciliation bill, but legislators deserve time to consider the biggest change in gun and safety laws in decades.
The Senate compromise makes sense politically for both parties. Democrats can claim progress on the issue after decades of failure, while Republicans can point to their bipartisan cooperation and then focus on the economy and other issues in the fall campaign. The gun lobby and those who want to ban guns aren’t happy, but the bill preserves gun rights while trying to keep guns away from the dangerous. That’s a step forward.
And:
GOP Compromises on Gun Rights Aren't Winning Votes or Solving Problems
By JONATHAN TOBIN , EDITOR IN CHIEF, JNS.ORG
Senate Republicans seem to think they are defusing a potential problem by playing along with anti-gun activists and agreeing to a legislative "compromise" on guns. They assume reaching a deal would dampen criticism of their support for gun rights and do them some good at the polls. They are mistaken. A new gun control bill would be just another instance of GOP moderates being enticed by their liberal opponents into doing something that will undermine support from the conservative base they need if they're going to take back control of Congress this fall.
The impetus for the bill—which was passed by the Senate on Tuesday with the votes of 14 Republicans—was the news of mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde, Texas. The outrage and frustration over the frequency of these atrocities created an opening for Democrats to return to their demands for more gun control legislat
Restricting the right to own a gun wouldn't have prevented any or all of the mass shootings. In a country where guns outnumber people, the notion that nibbling away at the edges of gun rights with measures that inconvenience law-abiding citizens, but go ignored by criminals, will solve the problem remains ludicrous.
But Senate Republicans are clearly sensitive to the criticism that any resistance to "doing something" about guns shows that they are hardhearted and aren't listening to the voters. Backed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the GOP senators who signed on to the bill hope to insulate themselves and their party from the charge that they are somehow responsible for the blood shed by mass shooters.
There are several problems with this strategy.
Some proposals in the new gun package seem anodyne. More funding for school security is absolutely necessary. So is allocating more resources for mental health awareness. Those facts, on which Republicans and Democrats generally agree, contradict the claims of gun rights opponents like Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) that talk of mental illness and gun violence is "bulls**t."
Other elements are more problematic.
The expansion of background checks, which already make purchasing a gun a daunting process, is also on the agenda. The bill includes a still-unresolved dispute about closing a so-called boyfriend loophole to make it harder for individuals who have been accused of domestic abuse to obtain a weapon. Given the plague of domestic violence, that seems reasonable. But even though the Republicans insisted on allowing dating partners convicted of a misdemeanor to regain the right to buy a gun after five years, provided that they were first-time offenders and not found guilty of any other violent offense, this also involves the denial of a constitutional right largely without any due process.
Due process is also at the heart of the effort to fund and encourage states to adopt or expand "red flag laws" that enable the government to take a weapon away from someone who is considered a threat to themselves or others.
It is possible to argue that, if enforced, red flag laws might have prevented some shootings. Yet laws already exist to deprive those convicted of felonies of the right to purchase a gun. Expanding them requires having faith in the fairness of a system that would be predicated on preemptively stripping people of their rights without them having actually committed a crime, requiring them to prove their innocence.
More important, this effort comes at a time when Democrats are increasingly labeling public criticism of left-wing policies as domestic terrorism. There is no reason for conservatives to trust a process that will in many places be controlled by political opponents who think of them as deplorable insurrectionists. That Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) once tweeted that red flag laws should be used to prevent conservative pundit Ben Shapiro from owning a gun demonstrates why such fears are far from unreasonable.
The negotiations are not a compromise but an attempt by Democrats to elicit Republican concessions toward the ultimate goal of effectively annulling the Second Amendment. Giving in on these points will not lessen the pressure from Democrats to go further after this bill is passed. Bowing to demands to "do something" as part of an emotional response to Buffalo or Uvalde won't take the heat off Republicans. By giving ground, McConnell's moderates will only fan the flames of the Left's already overheated campaign against gun manufacturers and gun owners.
That virtually nothing in this bill will address the gang violence, drug trafficking, and surge in crime in American cities merely underscores the one-sided nature of the gun negotiations.
And what about the idea that a "compromise" on gun control will help the GOP in upcoming elections? Liberals take it as a given that voters want more and more gun control but that Republicans' fealty to the "gun lobby" prevents it.
But as New York Times correspondent Nate Cohn recently conceded, the results of polls on guns largely depend on how the questions are framed. Few minds are being changed on either side of the political divide. Polls taken before and after the most recent incidents show that GOP voters are far less supportive of increasing gun control than Democrats are, and worry more about protecting gun rights than the never-ending search for laws that can stop mass shootings.
As Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.)—who had been assigned by McConnell to lead the Republicans in the gun control negotiations—learned last week when he was booed at the Texas state GOP convention, conservatives believe that on this issue the party's D.C. establishment is getting rolled by the Left.
Cooperation with the Democrats does nothing to silence the cries that the GOP is in thrall to gun nuts. Instead it legitimizes the Left's view that guns are a plague that must be taken off the market.
Given that there is no assurance that any of these measures would prevent another Uvalde or a similar horror, standing firm on gun rights is both good policy and good politics for Republicans. Concessions won't solve any of the nation's problems—but could create one for the GOP's own voters.
++++++++++++++++++
Why the Left Will Cut Biden Loose
+++
| |||||||||
|
No comments:
Post a Comment