The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Hillary 2016 Campaign: Should Cliven Bundy Take GOP POTUS Nomination?

Posted on | April 24, 2014 | 6 Comments

by Sissypuss the Blog Kitty

Upon infiltrating Global Clinton HQ, I overheard some interesting fallout from the recent Cliven Bundy revelations, which revealed some very Robert Byrd-esque sentiments:

“Where is our colored brother? Where is our Mexican brother? Where is our Chinese — where are they?” Bundy said. “They’re just as much American as we are, and they’re not with us. If they’re not with us, they’re going to be against us.”

Never one to let a good crisis go to waste, it seems that David Plouffe, recently in a funk over the rebuff given Jeb Bush over Jeb’s candidacy air biscuit, is now ecstatic.

This is because in Cliven Bundy, there exists a candidate whose primal American stick-it-to-the-manhood is completely irresistible to the anti-establishment conservative base. At the same time, his views are so smolderingly unpalatable to anyone born after the Apollo moonshot as to burn through the wet blanket that as ObamaCare, and excite the Democrat base.

In picking a GOP candidate to give a concession speech in 2008, Democrats just ran McCain’s war record around the country in a bus, against the will of the Tea Party. In 2012, they let RomneyCare run himself around the country, letting it be known that the most Mitt would do is re-brand ObamaCare. How could anyone turn down the spectacle of Cliven Bundy? The only thing that could make it more beautiful is if the man proved a direct descendant of Jefferson Davis. He’s like Donald Trump without all the pesky money and occasional outbursts of showmanship. Todd Akin without any political experience or abortions, but with plenty of bull, on the hoof and off.

Stand by, Conservatives: Hillary is going to deliver a doozy.

Category: Sissypuss the Blog Kitty

Let’s Condemn All the Sexist, Racist, Homophobic Heroes of American History

Posted on | April 24, 2014 | 78 Comments

One of the joys of being an independent blogger is that you don’t have to pay attention to anything that doesn’t interest you, or about which you have nothing helpful to say. At least 90% of what Fox News and talk radio spend their time blabbering about falls into that category for me. It’s not that those stories aren’t important. Rather the question is, what’s the point in me becoming the 143rd blogger to add my two cents on a particular story, unless I have something to say that hasn’t already been said better by someone else?

This “value-added” approach to blogging explains why I haven’t had anything to say about the Cliven Bundy BLM confrontation. There were a couple of times in recent days when I almost blogged about it, but then something else would catch my eye  — who can resist a LESBIAN POLYGAMY headline? — and I’d forget about it. But so what? Everybody was blogging about the Bundy story, and the value of my two cents would have been negligible anyway.

That stance changed this morning when I noticed Dana Loesch discussing how a Politico reporter asked her to comment on some controversial racial remarks made by Cliven Bundy:

I’ve only ever focused on the BLM. In fact, I repeatedly said on my radio program that this isn’t about Cliven Bundy, it’s always been about the abuse of the BLM. The left is unhappy with this because they want to use Bundy’s remark to invalidate the entirety of the claims against the BLM. Forget Tommy Henderson, Kenni Patton, or other ranchers who have weighty claims against the BLM, it’s all moot now because of Cliven Bundy. Bundy’s a racist, therefore anyone who agreed with his criticism of the BLM’s heavy-handed tactics is also a racist. Bundy’s a racist, thus the politicians who spoke against the BLM sending 200 armed agents to deal with a local issue must also be racists. Now it’s the left who wants to make this about Bundy and his remark so they can silence all criticism of the BLM. In their minds, you can’t condemn Bundy’s remark and criticize the BLM. . . .
Bundy’s horrible remark doesn’t change that the BLM is overreaching.

Exactly so, Dana. This calls to mind, by the way, Andrew Breitbart’s insistence on “vetting” people before associating himself with them. Andrew understood that, in order to be in the white-hot heat of the national spotlight, he had to be “clean” of any unsavory associations, and he was careful to make sure he checked people out, sometimes in ways that offended them. But I digress . . .

The top of Memeorandum is now covered with reactions to Bundy’s “Negro” remarks, including condemnation by the eminent Nevada civil rights leader Harry Reid (eye-roll) and predictable celebratory jeering from the usual suspects, e.g., Slate.

Yet Dana’s point still holds: Bundy’s unfortunate remarks do not in the least justify the abusive conduct of the BLM. Do we have to conduct tests of people’s opinions on every controversial issue before we recognize their fundamental rights? And who will be the arbiter of which opinions are and are not acceptable? Will NARAL be the judge of what is acceptable to think about abortion? Will we authorize GLAAD to investigate people’s views on homosexuality? And will such judgments then be made the basis of whether a citizen is entitled to keep his life, liberty and property? Good God! Would liberals have tolerated this attitude toward suspected Communist subversives?

It should suffice to say that Bundy’s comments reflect opinions that are probably not uncommon among elderly white Nevada ranchers, who don’t waste much time wondering if their opinions (on race or anything else) are acceptably progressive. But the terroristic fury of an online lynch mob has had its intended effect: Republican politicians are predictably scuttling for cover, and very few of Bundy’s erstwhile supporters have been able to withstand the onslaught with anything like courage or dignity.

Among the dignified few is Kevin Williamson of National Review:

National Review correspondent Kevin Williamson, who recently compared Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy to Mahatma Gandhi, told TPM in an email on Thursday that he thought Bundy’s racially charged comments were “lamentable” but they were “separate” from Bundy’s standoff with the Bureau of Land Management. “Mr. Bundy’s racial rhetoric is lamentable and backward,” Williamson said in an email. “It is also separate from the fundamental question here, which is the federal government’s acting as an absentee landlord for nine-tenths of the state of Nevada.” “I very strongly suspect that most of the men who died at the Alamo held a great many views that I would find repugnant; we remember them for other reasons.”

Hear! Hear! And it’s not just the Alamo.

Has anyone ever bothered to investigate, for example, the racial opinions of those American heroes of the 101st Airborne Division who, surrounded by Hitler’s army at Bastogne, held firm to that crucial crossroads at peril of their lives? An awful lot of brave young G.I.’s probably died in the snow there — just like American boys died on the beach at Normandy, at Okinawa, at Iwo Jima — whose private opinions would today categorize them among the racists, sexists and homophobes that everyone with a WiFi connection now hastens to condemn.

Indeed, the careful student of history may be startled to learn the degree to which the Union troops whose victory in the Civil War secured the freedom of millions of slaves, were themselves quite frankly racist. For that matter, many of Abraham Lincoln’s statements about race were nearly as “lamentable and backward” as what Cliven Bundy said.

So I never said a word about Cliven Bundy until the Left decided to turn the old rancher into a symbol of “right-wing racism,” and now I’ve only got three more words to say: “Fuck you. War.”

 

Category: Racism

‘Who the F Are U?’

Posted on | April 24, 2014 | 81 Comments

The quoted tweet could be lesson one in a New Media seminar: “How Not to Respond to Jeff Goldstein on Twitter.” It began when Jeff (@ProteinWisdom) asked @CaliAzona why she favorited a certain tweet, and you can read through the resulting flame war.

My apathetic inattention to everything — except whatever it is I’m obsessed with at any particular moment, e.g., radical feminism — means that I completely missed that Twitter firestorm Tuesday, and didn’t notice it until Bob Belvedere called it to my attention.

What is this about? First, it’s not about ideology.

This always happens: Whenever people involved in politics get into a conflict, they will tend to define the conflict as political. The person with whom they disagree will be accused of deviation from the True Ideals of the Cause, whatever the Cause may be. I’ve seen this happen in all kinds of contexts over the past 15-plus years.

It’s basically what happened to Charles Johnson (who?) of Little Green Footballs (what?) — he got into a conflict with Pamela Geller, became convinced that it was ideological in nature and, within two years, Charles went from being one of the most influential conservative bloggers to being an obscure asterisk in Internet history.

OK, if it’s not about ideology, is it about courtesy?

The Internet Etiquette Police could not be reached for comment.

Urgent Breaking News: People are being rude on Twitter!

Nevertheless, one could say that any inclination toward deference by any of the parties involved might have averted the conflict. Deference is really the essence of courtesy, but a society that has no generally recognized hierarchy has no basis on which deference should be expected. This was what Edmund Burke meant, after all, in his famous lament that “the age of chivalry is gone.”

If the Queen of France could be seized by a mob of rabble, Burke correctly observed, then every customary basis of respect — “The unbought grace of life, the cheap defense of nations, the nurse of manly sentiment and heroic enterprise” — was under assault.

Ah, but never let it be said “democracy” has no hierarchies! Wealth, fame, beauty, political power — some animals are more equal than others, and the mad scramble to ascend the Ziggurat of Ambition produces a ceaseless churning: Who’s in? Who’s out? Who’s up? Who’s down? Who made the Top Ten list and who is Number One?

Status and prestige are marketable commodities, and values shift constantly in the exchange. Those who aspire to Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous discover that what qualifies one as Rich is subject to inflation, while Fame is a notoriously fickle whore. Nearly every day brings news of the death of an erstwhile VIP whose passing in old age is unlamented by youth who never knew their name.

Sic transit gloria mundi.

It has been a little more than two years since Andrew Breitbart died at the apogee of his fame. Everybody swore then that Andrew would never be forgotten, but when was the last time anybody quoted him? Andrew’s widow has been sued by Shirley Sherrod, and who has been following the process of that vexatious lawsuit?

People in a democracy are present-minded, prone to forget their heritage and ignore history, and democratic culture is hostile to tradition — even hostile, ultimately, to the tradition of democracy!

But I digress . . .

Amid the Tuesday flame war, Jeff Goldstein sarcastically remarked: “Conservatism on the internet began in 2009.” That is to say, some people who became active in online political discourse when the Tea Party first flared into existence five years ago — in particular, Twitter users — have a limited knowledge of what went on (and who did what) in the blogosphere Back in the Day.

It should not be necessary for Jeff Goldstein to remind people just how long he has been Fighting the Good Fight, but alas, it is:

It’s an interesting trip down memory lane, but it also shows a kind of site trajectory. So in that sense, the exercise was instructive — at least to me.  My Twitter stalkers won’t read them, because, you know, being challenged intellectually is not what this new brand of “conservative activism” is about. . . . I’d rather talk about substance than deal with the kinds of people whom I now have to rely on to carry “our” battle flag. Because having dealt with them — and been blocked by a few who have 10s of thousands of followers — that’s just too damn depressing. Especially when I realize that some of these were written when the current crop of “conservative influence peddlers” on Twitter were probably in the 3rd grade.

Please read the whole thing, because Jeff has every right to believe that many of us are deeply in his debt, and we are thus obligated to defend him against those who do properly not appreciate his long years of service to the conservative cause.

Hint: He includes a post from August 2002.

And now, boys and girls, it’s Story Time With Grandpa McCain: It was in Santa Barbara, California, at the West Coast Conference of the Young America’s Foundation in the fall of 2007 that I first met Jeff Goldstein. My buddy Jason Mattera had invited several bloggers to attend the conference, and I’d helped suggest names to be invited. Ace of Spades was there, and so was Rusty Shackleford of the Jawa Report. Little Miss Attila showed up, and I seem to recall Jim Hoft being there, too, but Grandpa McCain’s memory isn’t very reliable because of that unfortunate experience with psilocybin back in ’79. Anyway . . .

Several of us were lounging around the hotel lobby bar one evening when Jason Mattera approached me and said, “Hey, what’s up with this Jeff Goldstein guy?” Jason proceeded to tell me that Jeff was outside on the oceanview veranda in a heated argument with some of the college Republican kids attending the conference. Jason asked me to see if I could attempt to quell the dispute.

Outside I went, to find Jeff confronting half a dozen of these kids. He had a glass of bourbon in his hand and, from the tone of his discourse, I gathered it was his third or fourth glass. At least.

Jeff is philosophical by nature, and he was in the process of challenging these college kids’ commitment to classic liberalism.

Of course, the kids had no idea what was happening. They didn’t know who Jeff was, and the Total Goldstein Experience was rather shocking to them. Here they were, at a fabulous event in beautiful seaside Santa Barbara, and they had not expected to find themselves baited into a Socratic dialogue challenging their conservatism.

This is where it is necessary to explain that Jeff Goldstein is a complete fitness fanatic. He was wearing a T-shirt so that his muscular arms were displayed in all their bulging glory, a flesh-and-blood billboard declaring: “Don’t Fuck With Me, Hombre.”

Being from the South, where a skinny boy’s life and health depends in large measure on knowing who not to fuck with, the dynamic of the situation on the veranda at that moment was terrifying.

Trust me, I recognize an Incipient Redneck Brawl when I see one and with a sudden adrenaline rush I realized that, in asking me to intervene, Mattera had sent me into a potential combat zone.

“Hey, Jeff, let me buy you a drink!”

How does a skinny boy survive to adulthood in Georgia? By ingratiating himself to bad-asses, of course. If a fight breaks out, you want to make sure that the bad-asses are your friends, and so my first order of business was to head inside to the bar and get Jeff another bourbon on the rocks. This also gave me an opportunity to grab another Corona (in the bottle, because a beer bottle makes a handy weapon, if worse comes to worse) and time to analyze the situation. What the hell was happening here? And how could an escalation to violence be prevented? Honestly, I was kind of hoping the fight would break out while I was still at the bar, so that by the time I returned, the ugly confrontation would all be over.

As I recall — psilocybin can wreck your brain, boys and girls, so Grandpa McCain can’t say for certain — the biggest of the young Republicans facing off with Goldstein on the veranda was 6-foot-2 and 220 pounds. Probably played offensive lineman in high school. Jeff is medium height and maybe 170, but it’s all muscle, so if a fight breaks out, he’s the most dangerous beast in the scrum. And as I returned to this weird scene outside, the tense verbal face-off had not ended.

Picture it: A pleasant evening in coastal California, the glow of sunset fading to night. Palm trees shifting in the warm ocean breeze, while the surf softly lapped the beach just a couple hundred yards from the patio where Jeff Goldstein faced down a semi-circle of college Republican kids who were angry — and I mean, fighting mad — at being aggressively interrogated about their conservative bona fides.

The incongruity of the scene struck me as I handed Jeff a fresh bourbon. Details of his Socratic colloquy have long escaped my memory, but there were three or four guys and a girl or two in the college Republican group. This was one crucial factor in the toxic atmosphere: Jeff’s intellectual challenge to the boys amounted to showing them up in front of their girlfriends. Standing behind Jeff, meanwhile, were Ace, Rusty and Attila, who had been trying to mediate or at least keep Jeff calm.

Just as it seemed that fisticuffs were inevitable, however, Ace made a clever sarcastic jab that suddenly evaporated all the tension. You could ask Ace what he said and maybe he would remember exactly, but it was sort of an inside joke about Jeff’s rhetorical tactics.

Jeff burst out laughing hysterically and the frightening stand-off with the college Republican kids ended happily, although the kids certainly must have left wondering what it was all about.

That was the fall of 2007, you see — way back in the misty dawn of Internet time, when Giants Bestrode the Blogosphere.

My point in telling that story . . . No, seriously, I’m sure that story did have an actual point, something other than (a) Jeff Goldstein enjoys arguing, and (b) Ace of Spades has always been funny as hell.

Ah — yes! My point was that the hierarchy of respect is not always apparent to us. Those college kids in 2007 probably didn’t spend a lot of time surfing around the conservative blogosphere but, even if they had read Protein Wisdom, they had no idea that the muscular guy drinking bourbon and arguing with them outside that hotel in Santa Barbara was the esteemed blogger Jeff Goldstein.

Fast-forward six-and-a-half years and, when Goldstein confronts someone on Twitter, their response is, “Who the F are u?”

Well, in point of fact, Jeff Goldstein is somebody. You don’t have to like Jeff, but if you want to go to war with him, don’t make the mistake of underestimating him. Nor should you expect that Jeff’s friends will hesitate to join him in the fight. There are good people who owe Jeff favors, and I am most certainly among them.

Back in 2008, when I quit my newspaper job and embarked on this crazy freelance career, blog hits weren’t always rolling in by the thousands. There were days when getting linked at Protein Wisdom was an answer to earnest prayer. It would be dishonorable of me to forget such favors. The passage of time cannot erode an obligation of sincere gratitude.

Jeff and I haven’t had the opportunity to hang out in many years, but if he ever makes a trip East — or if I make a trip West — I’ll be glad to buy him another bourbon on the rocks. And if anyone wants to insult Jeff to his face, they’d better be ready to rumble.

 

Category: Protein Wisdom

This Is a Disgrace

Posted on | April 23, 2014 | 49 Comments

Students at Washington & Lee University badmouthing Robert E. Lee?

The worthless disrespectful punks should be expelled. Period.

 

Category: Education

Female Professor Accused of Sexually Molesting Mentally Disabled Man

Posted on | April 23, 2014 | 26 Comments

The intelligentsia are Our Moral Superiors:

Tomorrow a court hearing will be held in which it is expected New Jersey Superior Court Judge Siobhan Teare, will decide whether or not more testing is needed to determine whether a 33 year old man who suffers from cerebral palsy, was able to give consent during a long lasting sexual relationship with Rutgers Philosophy professor Anna Stubblefield.
It is said that the man has the mental capacity of an eighteen month old child.
Stubblefield is a practitioner of Facilitated Communication, a highly controversial technique that proponents say enables the severely mentally handicapped to communicate through “facilitators” by the use of touch and assistance with typing on a keyboard. She took on the man as a test subject in 2008 and in May of 2011 she approached the man’s mother telling her she had been engaging in a sexual relationship with him and that they were in love.
In August 2011, the man’s family brought their allegations to university police officers, who contacted Essex County prosecutors in January of 2013. Stubblefield was eventually indicted on aggravated sexual assault charges.

The Chronicle of Higher Education reports: “Stubblefield says that she informed the parents that she and John Roe were in love, and that their sexual relations were consensual.” Oh, well, if they were in love and it was consensual, no one can possibly object.

That was basically the argument of Kaitlyn Hunt’s defenders, and I’m sure the advocates of lesbian polygamy would agree.

 

Category: Crime, Education, Sex

Far Down the Slippery Slope: Lesbian Polygamy Emerges in Massachusetts

Posted on | April 23, 2014 | 94 Comments

Left to right: Doll, Brynn and Kitten Young.

If two women can marry, why not three?

The world’s only ‘married’ lesbian threesome are expecting their first child.
Doll, Kitten and Brynn, from Massachusetts, were joined together in a marriage-style ceremony last August and are expecting a daughter in July.
Kitten, 27, is pregnant after undergoing IVF treatment using an anonymous sperm donor, and the trio eventually plan to have three children — one for each of them.
The plan at the moment is that Kitten will bear all the children — possibly using her wives’ eggs and donated sperm — but they are open to other options, such as adoption.
Brynn, 34, says: ‘The hope is to have three kids altogether. We always joke that the children should never outnumber the parents.’
Doll, Kitten and Brynn Young married in a ceremony in August 2013, when each of their fathers walked them down the aisle. All three women wore white wedding gowns and exchanged rings.
The so-called ‘throuple’ worked with a specialist family lawyer who drew up the paperwork and drafted the ceremony so that all three of them were obligated and bound to each other .
While Brynn and Kitten are legally married, Doll is handfasted to both so the threesome are as equally married to each other as legally possible.

In other words, this three-way lesbian marriage is not legally recognized by state or federal law — yet. But it would be interesting to see any advocate of gay marriage make a legal argument against polygamous marriage. By the way, “handfasting” is a neo-pagan marriage ceremony, common among devotees of Wicca. (Once upon a time, witches were hanged in Massachusetts.) This story about Brynn, Doll and Kitten is so weird, I’m tempted to dismiss it as a publicity stunt or, perhaps, a desperate bid for a reality TV series contract, but who can doubt how far this fanatical devotion to Equality and Progress has gone?

You might smile if you recognize the irony in this recent headline:

Documentary Chronicles Lesbian
Couple’s Struggle with Infertility

Alas, the heartache of infertile lesbian marriages! The couple’s wedding in 2007 was featured in the New York Times. When Jessica Antonellis married Alexis Casano, they hyphenated their surnames so that they are both now Mrs. Antonellis-Casano. The documentary about their “struggle with infertility” has been praised and shown at film festivals. Spoiler: Alexis eventually got pregnant and has since given birth again, so that Mrs. & Mrs. Antonellis-Casano now have two sons.

Of course, you’re probably saying: “Two sons? Isn’t it going to be difficult for those two boys growing up in a lesbian household? Aren’t they likely to become terribly confused?” Not to worry: (a) They live in New York City, which recently elected Bill de Blasio mayor, so being “terribly confused” is more or less normal there; and (b) If the offspring of Mrs. & Mrs. Antonellis-Casano develop any uncertainty about their gender, they can attend Camp Aranu’tiq.

Oh, you haven’t heard about Camp Aranu’tiq? It’s “a nonprofit program serving trans & gender-variant youth ages 6-18. We plan to serve 300+ campers this year!” So if your transvestite first-graders need a summer camp, you know where to send them. The founder of Camp Aranu’tiq, Nick Teich, was invited to the White House for an LGBT leadership meeting in 2012. Camp Aranu’tiq was the subject of a Boston Globe feature story:

Teich, who lives in Newton, started the nonprofit camp in Connecticut in 2010. A transgender male, he had a personal interest in providing a safe, fun place for kids who live on the outskirts of society. Teich loved the camp in Maine he had attended as a girl. He was there for 13 years, as a camper, counselor in training, counselor, and finally, member of the leadership team.
Some of those camp colleagues then began their own weeklong charity camp, where Teich volunteered for three summers. But five years ago, when he announced he was transitioning into becoming a man, he got a call from the head of that charity camp, with a lawyer on the line. “You can’t come back for the good of the kids,” he was told.
“It took me months to get over my serious anger,” said ­Teich, 29, a social worker who is pursuing a doctorate in social policy from Brandeis. “Then I said, you know what? I know a lot about camp, and there are kids who don’t fit into society, gender-wise. Why don’t I just start my own camp?”

No, that’s not a photo of the Camp Aranu’tiq staff. My apologies if that caused any unnecessary confusion, but confusion is everywhere nowadays, as we go Slouching Toward Angrogyny.

 

Category: Feminism, Gays, Marriage

Scalia Nails It Again

Posted on | April 23, 2014 | 47 Comments

James Taranto on yesterday’s Supreme Court decision upholding Michigan’s ban on discriminatory quotas in university admissions:

The six justices who voted to reverse the Sixth Circuit and let the Michigan amendment stand split 3-2-1 on the grounds for doing so. The result is a clear outcome but a doctrinal muddle. We thought it would be amusing and enlightening to go through the four main opinions in descending order of clarity.
Clearest of all is Justice Antonin Scalia’s concurrence in the judgment, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. “It has come to this,” Scalia begins portentously. “Called upon to explore the jurisprudential twilight zone between two errant lines of precedent, we confront a frighteningly bizarre question: Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbid what its text plainly requires?”
Scalia and Thomas’s view, thus far joined by no other sitting justice, is that racial discrimination in public-university admissions is flatly unconstitutional. . . .
Then there’s the [Obama-appointed Justice Sandra] Sotomayor dissent, which begins as follows: “We are fortunate to live in a democratic society. But . . .” An empty piety, followed by an equivocation, followed by a total of 58 pages — you know this is going to be a tough slog. . . .

Read the whole thing.

 

Category: Education, Racism, Supreme Court

Ray Moore Is Right!

Posted on | April 23, 2014 | 31 Comments

Ray Moore is a candidate in the South Carolina Republican primary for lieutenant governor. He is also a courageous Christian patriot whom I first interviewed in 2002 when he published a book (and accompanying documentary video) called Let My Children Go. Moore is an advocate of Christian education and a supporter of the homeschooling movement who believes — as do I — that the public school system is hopelessly broken and incapable of reform. So here is the headline on Rebecca Klein’s story at Huffington Post:

GOP Candidate Says Christians
Must Pull Their Kids Out
Of ‘Godless’ Public Schools

That this is a ginned-up liberal hit piece, you can tell by the tendentious use of scare-quotes around the word “godless.”

Is this even a matter of dispute in 2014? Does anyone deny that, as the result of both judicial rulings and institutional policy, the expression of religious belief is prohibited in American public schools? Furthermore, anyone familiar with the curriculum and pedagogy of public schools can tell you that what students are now being taught is an aggressively secular, anti-biblical worldview.

Well, as Joseph said to his brothers in Egypt, what the Huffington Post meant for evil, God meant for good. This attempt to portray Ray Moore as a dangerous extremist is the kind of free publicity that may catapult his candidacy to victory. We’re talking about a South Carolina Republican primary, after all. Being nationally known as the Christian conservative who stands firmly in opposition to godless public schools is probably worth thousands of dollars in contributions and enough extra votes to ensure a spot in the runoff.

Who needs any further argument?

CLICK HERE NOW TO DONATE TO RAY MOORE

Never miss a chance to defy the godless media.

 

Category: Education, South Carolina
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin