The Other McCain

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

Our ‘Objective’ Media

Posted on | October 7, 2019 | Comments Off on Our ‘Objective’ Media

 

Is it necessary to remind readers that George Stephanopoulos is a partisan political operative, a former Clinton staffer?

On Sunday’s broadcast of “This Week,” host George Stephanopoulos opened his show with a report proclaiming a second “whistleblower.”
Stephanopoulos said, “Good morning. Welcome to ‘This Week,’ a week of head-snapping developments. The first key witness testimony to Congress. the first release of text messages from administration officials confirming the pressure campaign or Ukraine outlined in the original whistleblower complaint. That public request from President Trump calling on China to investigate Joe Biden. A new request for documents from Vice President Pence. This morning more breaking news. ABC News has learned that the legal team representing the first whistle-blower is now representing a second whistleblower. Attorney Mark Zaid said he is a member of the intelligence community with firsthand information on some of the allegations at issue.”

The truth about this “second whistleblower” trick:

Inspector General Michael Atkinson, who changed the rules governing “whistleblowing” to accommodate this hearsay gossip, will rue the day he did this. He said he was unaware that the “whistleblower,” reportedly a CIA functionary assigned to the White House years ago where he worked with anti-Trump Ukrainians to stop Trump and who has not worked there for two or three years, had first talked to congressional staff. He was unaware of it, perhaps because the whistleblower complaint form asks if he had previously told anyone, including congressional staff, about this and lied about that, subjecting himself to possible felony charges. Moreover, allowing in such unsubstantiated gossip by a liar who had no firsthand knowledge of the substance of the complaint will only unleash a flood of these baseless charges, tying up more government resources on nonsense.

It’s all a big psyops scheme, a partisan propaganda campaign, an orchestrated collusion between media, Democrats and “deep state” hacks.

(Hat-tip: Instapundit.)



 

Category: Corruption, Media Bias, Ukraine

The Eternal White Guilt Trip

Posted on | October 6, 2019 | Comments Off on The Eternal White Guilt Trip

Mark Bauerlein in American Greatness:

“The deliberate national penance that most Germans take for granted offers a striking contrast with the ways American have confronted their own national crimes.”
That’s a line from an article last month in The Atlantic. The article focuses on a supposedly sad divergence: while Germans have fully acknowledged their responsibility for the Holocaust and accepted their guilt, Americans have failed to do the same with their history of slavery and Jim Crow.
The comparison is the kind of stretch that only a pampered, liberal, Ivy-League educated professor who has spent lots of time in Europe could make. In truth, there is little evidence in the Atlantic essay that the author knows more about the antebellum and post-Reconstruction periods than one would acquire in a freshman U.S. history course. (She is a philosophy professor who now heads a center in Potsdam.) Nor does she acknowledge the relentless focus on African American history in high schools and colleges, among national book award winners, and by Hollywood. She seems to regard American slavery, too, as a perverse and unique condition, even though in 1800 slavery existed on every continent and had existed forever before, and that the Arab and South American slave trades dwarfed the North American market.
But when you’re voicing common liberal wisdom, you needn’t bother with historical particulars. Generalizations pass without scrutiny. Among the professors, you see, American guilt is a bien pensant basic. People have built successful careers rehearsing it over and over. . . .

You can read the whole thing, but before I say anything else, let me say this: Nothing is analogous to the Holocaust.

There have been other totalitarian regimes in modern history, but Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich were sui generis. Every attempt to condemn someone or something — anyone or anything — by comparing them to Hitler and the Nazis is an insult to historical memory. That the author of the Atlantic article, Susan Neiman, is herself a Jew does not give her license to make such a false and insulting analogy.

As Mark Bauerlein points out, slavery in the United States was not without historical precedent. If the institution of slavery in America differed from slavery in Cuba, Brazil or other nations in the Western hemisphere, the difference does not support an anti-American interpretation. Certainly slavery was not worse in the United States than in Latin American countries; in particular, slavery in the Caribbean sugar plantations was a deadly business, mainly due to the tropical climate. African slavery, which had long been established among the Arabs of North Africa, was imported to the New World to remedy a labor shortage in the European colonies. Every colonial power — Spain, Portugal, France, the Netherlands, England — resorted to slavery, and only anti-American prejudice could explain why the history of slavery is used to condemn the United States in a way it is never used to condemn any other nation. And as for Jim Crow, it ought not be forgotten that it was a segregated America that defeated Nazi Germany in World War II, which makes no sense if Jim Crow was analogous to the Holocaust.

In my lifetime — today is my 60th birthday — I’ve seen the history of slavery employed two different ways, equally dishonest. First, slavery (and racism generally) was portrayed as an evil unique to the South. This was just a way for liberal Yankees to put down Southerners, to smear the population of an entire region as morally inferior. Being a student of history, I was always willing to defend my homeland against such insults, because the fact is that the North was by no means innocent in regard to racism, or slavery for that matter. Go to Providence, Rhode Island, and look at those fine colonial mansions — how do you suppose the commercial shippers of Providence made their fortunes? What cargo might have been so lucrative as to have made such handsome profits possible? Widespread ignorance about the North’s role in slavery is, of course, a legacy of the North’s victory in the Civil War. “The winners write the history books,” as they say, and so anti-Southern propaganda (which had done so much to foment the crisis that led to the war) was smuggled into history, branding the South with a hateful stigma. To this day, many Yankees are utterly ignorant about the true facts. “Slavery’s hidden history in the mid-Hudson Valley coming to light,” was a headline last year in the Poughkeepsie (N.Y.) Journal, where most local residents had no idea that slaves once worked the farmlands of the region.

The anti-Southern version of slavery’s history, however, has more recently given way to the anti-white interpretation of slavery. This is leftist identity-politics grievance-mongering, a deliberately divisive libel intended to inflame racial resentment, justifying a “social justice” belief system borrowed from Marxist-Leninist ideology. Even white people whose ancestors did not even arrive in the United States until after the Civil War are expected to feel guilty about an institution in which they are not implicated, and the collective grievance of black people is extended even to people whose ancestors were never slaves in this country. For example, neither Barack Obama nor Kamala Harris are descended from African-American slaves, and yet are permitted to leverage racial identity politics to their advantage, without any critical scrutiny.

You are a “racist” is you object to this, however. That’s the permanent tactic of the modern Left — everything and everybody is racist, and if you don’t agree, your disagreement proves how racist you are. And here is Susan Neiman virtue-signalling in the Atlantic:

Like most white Americans, I was taught a history that was both comforting and triumphant. I wasn’t, of course, entirely ignorant of the ways in which the country failed to live up to the ideals on which it was founded, but those failures remained peripheral, and part of a narrative that sloped upward toward progress. Slavery was a crime, but we’d fought a war to outlaw it; segregation was unjust, but the civil-rights movement had overcome it. Barack Obama’s presidency seemed the natural coda to this hopeful story. Few people believed that the election of an African American president could end racism entirely, but no one expected the backlash we are witnessing now. If there’s a silver lining to a White House that — in its public statements, policy choices, and political strategy — regularly signals its support for white nationalism, it’s that white Americans have been forced to publicly examine their country’s history as never before.
Just a few years ago, major national media had to patiently explain that the monuments valorizing Confederate soldiers were not innocent tributes to recently fallen ancestors, but the deliberate attempt of organizations like the Daughters of the Confederacy to promote a false account of the Civil War that buttressed white-supremacist ideology. For those of us who are not professional historians, the years between the Emancipation Proclamation and the Montgomery bus boycott were largely blank.

Really? You have to be a “professional historian” to know anything about American race relations between 1865 and 1955? But it is false to smear the United Daughters of the Confederacy as propagators of “white-supremacist ideology”; they were concerned with preserving the memory of their ancestors, as anyone should be. The cause of Southern independence was not coterminous with “white supremacy,” especially when one considers the white-supremacist statements of Abraham Lincoln and other pro-Union/anti-slavery Northerners. It is foolish to imagine that every leader of the North in the Civil War was motivated by humanitarian sympathy toward black people.

The history of crises that produced the Civil War is a subject I’ve studied in depth, and the simple fact is that it originated in the New England states, which had resented their loss of political influence dating back at least as far as the administration of James Madison. Go back and study the War of 1812 and the Hartford Convention, where representatives of the New England states considered secession in opposition to the “War Hawks” whom they blamed for a needless conflict with England. Virginia’s 24-year control of the presidency — Jefferson, Madison, and James Monroe — was insulting to the pride of ambitious New Englanders, and the single unpopular term of John Quincy Adams was followed by the presidency of the frontier hero Andrew Jackson. The subsequent addition of new Western territories in the Mexican War further aggrieved the New Englanders, who thereafter began to embrace abolitionism as a means of dividing the alliance of the South and West that had excluded them from power. This was the underlying political and economic cause of the repeated crises of the 1850s.

We need not “take sides” in the Civil War to see that the end of slavery could have been obtained by peaceable measures, and that it was not the avowed purpose of the North, at the outset, to wage a war to end slavery. So a nuanced and realistic view of this history does not impugn the Confederates, who saw themselves as defending basic principles that they believed had been abrogated by the North. Nor does a realistic view of that history make the end of slavery a reason for animosity, either between North and South, or between black and white Americans. Let any fair-minded person examine the history — Stanley Horn’s The Robert E. Lee Reader is a fascinating volume I recommend — and decide whether Susan Neiman’s interpretation of Southern heritage is correct.

Here we are in 2019, however, and this ancient history is being exploited by the Left to foster conflict for the sake of politics. When Susan Neiman speaks of “the backlash we are witnessing now,” she means that Trump’s presidency is an expression of “white-supremacist ideology,” when in fact it is simply a rejection of the Left’s policy agenda. To do so by comparing the Confederacy to Nazi Germany is an insult, and one I take personally, but my personal feelings as a Southerner are less important than the realization that the leftist ideology Neiman expresses is dangerous. Her dishonest smear of my ancestors is coincidental to her larger project, i.e., the destruction of our constitutional republic and its replacement with socialist tyranny. Never trust anyone who speaks ill of Robert E. Lee.



 

Category: History

FMJRA 2.0: It’s Only Rock & Roll

Posted on | October 6, 2019 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Rule 5 Sunday: Summertime Girls
Animal Magnetism
Bacon Time
Ninety Miles From Tyranny
A View From The Beach
EBL

‘Sexually Explicit Text Messages’
First Street Journal
Bacon Time
Pushing Rubber Downhill
Locomotive Breath
EBL

In The Mailbox: 10.01.19
Bacon Time
357 Magnum
A View From The Beach
Proof Positive
EBL

Other Times, Other Wars
EBL

Crazy People Are Dangerous
EBL

FMJRA 2.0: Alien Turned Human
The Pirate’s Cove
A View From The Beach
EBL

Impeachment Mania!
Bacon Time
A View From The Beach
EBL

If Trump’s Not #Winning, Why Does Biden Want to Silence Giuliani?
Bacon Time
Dark Brightness
A View From The Beach
EBL

‘Shared Values’ = $195 Million
Bacon Time
EBL

In The Mailbox: 09.30.19
Bacon Time
A View From The Beach
Proof Positive
EBL

The Question the Democrats Don’t Want You to Ask: Who Is Alexandra Chalupa?
Bacon Time
EBL

Racist Attack on Child Makes National News, Turns Out to Be a Hoax
Bacon Time
EBL

Demonic Forces on the Rise?
Bacon Time
Locomotive Breath
A View From The Beach
EBL

NY Times Prints Fawning Profile of MSNBC Host Rachel Maddow
Bacon Time
EBL

My Brother Kirby Needs Help
Bacon Time
EBL

Ukraine ‘Scandal’ Hoax Imploding
Bacon Time
EBL

In The Mailbox: 10.03.19 (Morning Edition)
Bacon Time
Proof Positive
EBL

‘DEEP STATE’ BOMBSHELL: Rosenstein Was Part of Anti-Trump Coup Plot
Bacon Time
A View From The Beach
EBL

Hey, @LiamHemsworth: Name Something You Should Never Stick in Crazy
Bacon Time
Pushing Rubber Downhill
EBL

In The Mailbox: 10.03.19 (Evening Edition)
Bacon Time
A View From The Beach
Proof Positive
EBL

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge
Bacon Time
EBL

Three Headlines
Bacon Time
EBL

In The Mailbox: 10.04.19
Bacon Time
Proof Positive
EBL

Top linkers for the week ending October 4:

  1.  EBL (24)
  2.  Bacon Time (20)
  3.  A View From The Beach (9)
  4.  Proof Positive (5)

Thanks to everyone for all the linkagery!

Amazon Warehouse Deals

Try Amazon Music Unlimited Free Trial




Category: FMJRA Award

Who Is Murdering Whom? And How?

Posted on | October 5, 2019 | 2 Comments

New York murder suspect Randy Rodriquez Santos.

If all you know about crime is what you get from CNN and Democrat politicians, you might suppose that the typical murder in America is committed by a right-wing white male with an AR-15 rifle. But the facts are otherwise, as for example this recent crime in New York:

A deranged vagrant wielding a lethal length of metal pipe savagely beat four sleeping homeless men to death early Saturday as they hunkered down for the night on the streets of Chinatown, police said.
A fifth homeless man was critically injured, suffering a serious head wound, before police nabbed Randy Rodriguez Santos, 24, as he walked near Canal St. with the murder weapon resting on his shoulder, cops said. One of the victims was a man in his 80s, and the youngest was in his early 50s, cops said.
Santos, who was also homeless, was charged with four counts of murder and one count of attempted murder in connection with the 1:45 a.m. bloodbath. The suspect was arrested this past May for threatening a man inside a Brooklyn homeless shelter, but he walked when the victim refused to press charges, law enforcement sources told the Daily News. . . .
Police said Santos has a rap sheet with a half-dozen prior arrests in the last two years, including the attempted assault with a weapon just five months ago in Brooklyn. According to sources, Santos had a history of fighting and arguing with other homeless people.

Four people dead, and we await the CNN town hall for metal pipe control. Meanwhile, there’s more crime news from the Bronx:

Cops have identified the 63-year-old man accused of killing his wife with a machete in The Bronx, authorities said Friday.
Victor Mateo is suspected of running over his 58-year-old wife Thursday morning, then getting out of his car and hacking her multiple times, causing a bloody, chaotic scene on Ellsworth near Schley avenues in Throggs Neck, according to police.
Mateo’s wife, Noelia Mateo, was found unconscious by cops after a 911 caller reported the brutal attack around 7 a.m. She died a short time later at Jacobi Medical Center.
Her husband had already fled the scene and was still being hunted by cops Friday.
A 78-year-old neighbor, Victor DiCristina, told The Post that she rushed to the door when heard people screaming and witnessed the attack.
“The first thing I saw was a person underneath the back of a car across the street and the guy was trying to grab that person and pulling her out by the leg,” she said.
“He had a machete in his hand. … He went after her with that machete. He was swinging it. He hit her on the left side. Then he went to her left side,” she recalled.

Bronx murder suspect Victor Mateo

OK, so the weapons of choice in this crime were a car and a machete. Believe it or not — and if you’re a CNN viewer, this might astonish you — there are ways to kill people without an AR-15, and most murders in America are not committed by right-wing white guys.

You can learn a lot about crime from the FBI’s annual crime report. Their report for 2018 was released this week, and what it reveals completely contradicts the liberal media narrative and the rhetoric of Democrat politicians. For example, “when the race of the offender was known” (11,514 cases in 2018), nearly 55% of murders (6,318) were committed by African-Americans, and nearly 14% (1,576) were committed by Hispanics, meaning that non-Hispanic whites committed barely 30% of murders in the United States. These are simply the facts.

And what are the weapons of choice? The most common murder weapons (6,603 murders in 2018) are pistols, whereas knives were used in 1,515 murders, and 443 people were killed with blunt objects. But what about those terrible semi-automatic “assault rifles” that Democrats want to confiscate? Rifles of all types accounted for a mere 297 murders in 2018, meaning that you were more than five times likely to be stabbed to death than to be murdered with a rifle. It is pistols, not AR-15s, that pose the greatest public-safety risk, according to the FBI data, so why aren’t the anchors on CNN talking about pistols? For the same reason that they aren’t talking about the fact that nearly 70% of murders are committed by black or Hispanic criminals — these facts don’t fit the liberal narrative.

There is a built-in bias in the way crime is reported by the media. Certain crimes are inherently more newsworthy than others. It is understandable that when, for example, a Jew-hater kills 11 people in a synagogue, this gets nationwide media attention. But the vast majority of murders in America are not “hate crimes,” and they don’t involve AR-15s.

The atrocities that get wall-to-wall coverage on CNN are atypical of murder in general, and the saturation media coverage tends to distort public understanding of crime. So far this year, 404 people have been murdered in Chicago — about 10 murders in the average week — and how many of those murders got mentioned on CNN? Pretty close to zero, because the typical murder in Chicago is, well, typical — young black and Hispanic males fighting turf wars between rival drug gangs. Reporting such crimes doesn’t do anything to advance the Democrat Party political agenda, and therefore, it’s just “local news.” And speaking of local news, all the major networks are based in New York City, but they won’t report on the wave of anti-Semitic hate crimes in the city. Care to guess why? Hint: The perpetrators aren’t right-wing Trump supporters.



 

Category: Crime, Media Bias

‘Inappropriate Behavior’: Elizabeth Warren Fires Organizing Director

Posted on | October 5, 2019 | 1 Comment

 

The details are sketchy so far:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) campaign on Friday fired its national organizing director Rich McDaniel amid accusations of “inappropriate behavior.”
Warren campaign spokesperson Kristen Orthman released a statement on Friday, confirming that the campaign had been receiving “multiple complaints regarding inappropriate behavior by Rich McDaniel.”
“Over the past two weeks, senior campaign leadership received multiple complaints regarding inappropriate behavior by Rich McDaniel,” Orthman told Politico.
“Over the same time period, the campaign retained outside counsel to conduct an investigation,” she continued.
“Based on the results of the investigation, the campaign determined that his reported conduct was inconsistent with its values and that he could not be a part of the campaign moving forward,” Orthman added. . . .
Details of the accusations remain unclear, but Politico reported that the allegations did not involve sexual assault, according to a source.

So his behavior was “inappropriate,” but he didn’t rape anybody. Also, there were “multiple complaints.” I blame racism!



 

Category: Elizabeth Warren

‘The Patron Saint of Incels’

Posted on | October 5, 2019 | 1 Comment

 

The new Warner Brothers/DC film Joker is having an impressive opening weekend at the box office, and there’s talk of an Oscar for Joaquin Phoenix, but critics generally hate the movie for its portrayal of Batman’s nemesis as a misunderstood victim of society. Personally, I am troubled by the subject matter and theme of the film. One thing I recognized long ago is that disturbed personalities have a tendency to cheer for the monster in horror movies. To such people, Freddie Krueger is a hero and role model. So doing the “backstory” on a villain like the Joker, humanizing him and showing him to be a product of an unhappy background, is inherently dangerous. Bad people with a chip on their shoulders are apt to identify with such a figure, and thus to see the Joker’s crimes as revenge on an unjust society.

Nevertheless, I am amused by the angry tone of Joker‘s critics, particularly such feminists as Time magazine’s Stephanie Zacharek:

Phoenix’s Arthur Fleck — he’ll later become one of Batman’s nemeses, the Joker, in case you didn’t already know that — is an odd, lonely guy who lives at home with the mother (played by a wan Frances Conroy) he love-hates.
Arthur works for a sad rent-a-clown joint, and nothing ever goes right. . . .
He gets angrier and more isolated by the minute. No one is ever kind to Arthur; he’s the world’s saddest punching bag. . . .
As you can probably guess, all of Arthur’s travails are leading up to a series of “See what you made me do?” brutalities, most of which happen while he’s dressed up in his clown suit. Violence makes him feel more in control, less pathetic. Killing — usually with a gun, but scissors or a good old-fashioned suffocation will do just fine — empowers him.
But it’s not as if we don’t know how this pathology works: In America, there’s a mass shooting or attempted act of violence by a guy like Arthur practically every other week. And yet we’re supposed to feel some sympathy for Arthur, the troubled lamb; he just hasn’t had enough love. Before long, he becomes a vigilante folk hero — his first signature act is to kill a trio of annoying Wall Street spuds while riding the subway, which inspires the masses to don clown masks and march enthusiastically around the city with “Kill the Rich!” placards. . . .
Meanwhile, the movie lionizes and glamorizes Arthur even as it shakes its head, faux-sorrowfully, over his violent behavior. There’s an aimless subplot involving a neighbor in Arthur’s apartment building, played by Zazie Beetz . . . Arthur has a crush on her, and though he does her no harm, there’s still something creepily entitled about his attentiveness to her. He could easily be adopted as the patron saint of incels.
Arthur is a mess, but we’re also supposed to think he’s kind of great — a misunderstood savant. . . . Arthur inspires chaos and anarchy, but the movie makes it look like he’s starting a revolution, where the rich are taken down, the poor get everything they need and deserve, and the sad guys who can’t get a date become killer heroes.

So, a hero your typical Bernie Sanders supporter can admire? The message of the movie is clear, critic Ian Sandwell says:

[Director Todd] Phillips has spoken about how it’s “good” that movies like this could lead to discussions about violence, but it would have been nice for Joker to explore it more. It has one point to make, and makes it in slightly different ways throughout: the rich are terrible and society needs to do more to help people like Arthur.
That’s not to say that Joker turns Arthur into an anti-hero, at least not for the audience. It’s clear throughout that he’s a psychopath and is not someone to be celebrated.

This theme — “the rich are terrible” — has been overdone by Hollywood, where people get rich making movies that demonize the wealthy. And is it true that “society needs to do more to help people like Arthur”? Well, if locking them up in the looney bin is “helping,” yeah, I guess so.

Crazy People Are Dangerous.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!



 

Category: Movies

Angry Biden: ‘It’s Not a Conflict of Interest … I’m Not Going to Respond to That’

Posted on | October 5, 2019 | Comments Off on Angry Biden: ‘It’s Not a Conflict of Interest … I’m Not Going to Respond to That’

 

The stench of corruption:

Former Vice President Joe Biden exploded at the media on Friday when asked about his youngest son’s shadowy business dealings in Ukraine.
The tense altercation occurred during a campaign stop in Los Angeles, California, where the former vice president was asked if Hunter Biden’s service on the board of directors of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian oil and gas giant, had posed a conflict of interest during his time in the White House.
Biden, who in the past had refused to discuss his son’s business dealings with foreign governments, appeared perturbed by the question.
“It’s not a conflict of interest,” the former vice president said. “There’s been no indication of any conflict of interest, from Ukraine or anywhere else, period. I’m not going to respond to that.”
The question regarding the potential conflict of interest came only hours after the newly appointed Ukrainian Prosecutor General announced he was reviewing allegations of criminal conduct against Burisma.
Hunter Biden joined the company’s board of directors in April 2014, despitehaving no prior background in either the energy industry or Ukraine. As Peter Schweizer, senior contributor at Breitbart News, detailed in his book Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends, Hunter Biden secured the position, which paid as much as $83,000 per month, around the same time his father was tapped to lead the Obama administration’s policy in Ukraine.
The timing of Hunter Biden’s ascension to Burisma’s board immediately raised questions from ethics watchdogs in both the U.S. and Europe concerning conflicts of interest. Adding to the ethical cloud over that appointment was that Mykola Zlochevsky, Burisma’s founder, had his assets seized in the United Kingdom for suspicion of money laundering. Many have speculated Hunter Biden’s position on Burisma’s board was an attempt by Zlochevsky to curry favor with western leaders to prevent further scrutiny of his business dealings.
Such a brazen attempt would not be totally ill-suited for Zlochevsky. The Burisma founder is rumored to be one of eastern Europe’s top oligarchs, a position obtained while serving in the Ukrainian government under former President Viktor Yanukovych — a staunch ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin. It was during his tenure in government as Ukraine’s minister of natural resources that Burisma received its oil and gas licenses.

Remember that Biden denied ever talking to Hunter about his business in Ukraine, but then a photo turned up of Biden and Hunter playing golf with an executive from the Ukrainian gas company. When reporters tried to ask him about that photo, Biden again refused to answer:

“This is the guy that’s unhinged,” Biden said about the president. “He is unhinged. I worry about what he’s going to do — not about me or my family. I’m worried about what he’ll do in the next year in the presidency, as this thing continues to rot on his watch.”

Don’t ask Joe questions about Ukraine! He gets angry when you do that.



 

Category: Joe Biden, Ukraine

‘Nothing Short of a Coup’

Posted on | October 5, 2019 | 1 Comment

The Trump 2020 campaign recently made an $8 million ad buy, and this is one of the ads that will be running as part of that buy:

 

The Trump campaign has been piling up millions and the Democrats have given them an excuse to start spending it early with ads like this.
‘
“Punch back twice as hard,” as somebody said.



 

Category: Donald Trump
« 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