Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for the ‘Opinion’ Category

Getting Caught-Up With More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons


My Own Two Cents


Listening to this socialist trial of President trump, under the transparent guise of being an impeachment inquiry, I am left with many questions.

  • The Leftist are proceeding with a hearing to impeach a dully elected President based on presumptuous, manufactured, taken out of context, spun and manipulated farce they represent as facts. This is more proof of their socialistic mindsets because socialist conduct all trials this way. The verdict is predetermined. The accused is doomed to a guilty verdict. Here’s the question: If given the control of all three of the divisions of The Federal Government, what will stop them from treating all people of the United States the same?
    • Rival politicians?
    • Judges?
    • Governors?
    • Any person whose speech they don’t like?
    • , etc., etc.?
  • What would stop the socialist left from telling the American people that their interpretation of the Constitution is the ONLY correct one?
  • Would these socialist outlaw the Electoral College making all national elections based on who got the most votes removing all possibility that a Conservative/Republican would ever be elected?
    • How long would it take to take over control of the states?
  • How long before our Constitution would be done away with and replaced with a socialist supported document?
  • Where would this stop?

Ann Coulter OPINION: Are Facts White Nationalist?


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: Dec 04, 2019 4:00 PM

Are Facts White Nationalist?

Source: peterspiro/iStock/Getty Images Plus

I gather it would be proof positive of “white nationalism” to point out that the only group discriminated against in college admissions is white people. We’ve heard a lot about discrimination against Asians lately, which reminds me: Asians are SO lucky they’re not white! Otherwise, America’s leading hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, would be churning out reports on the worrying rise in Asian Supremacy.

In fact, however, a recent study by Georgetown University (probably White Nationalist), funded by the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation (presumed hate group), found that if colleges admitted students based solely on SAT scores, every single ethnic group would decline, except one: whites.

Yes, even fewer Asian students would be admitted on an SAT-only admission standard. (I presume this is because Asians have better GPAs than white students.)

Obviously, this was NOT the purpose of the study. I’m pretty sure it was supposed to ferret out some small pocket of racism that had somehow passed undenounced. But when the only race being discriminated against turned out to be whites, the study was locked in a lead casket and dropped to the bottom of the sea.

This isn’t a new phenomenon: The New York Times was writing about it 30 years ago. In the late 1980s, whites were about 62 percent of California’s high school graduates, but constituted only 45 percent of those admitted to its universities. As a university official told the Times, “Whites are the only group underrepresented.”

Today, the Times would be tracking down that official to make sure he was fired.

The lie of “white privilege” is treated as an implacable fact throughout our cultural institutions, no matter how manifestly absurd it is. Thus, in the discredited book “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh,” authors Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly act as if a half-Puerto Rican girl entering Yale in the 1980s deserves a place in the civil rights pantheon along with the Little Rock Nine.

[If it seems like that is the only New York Times article I’ve read this year, it practically is. Every counterfactual, hateful, lunatic impulse of the left was contained in that single book excerpt, so it’s all you need.]

The authors write: “Yale in the 1980s was in the early stages of integrating more minority students into its historically privileged white male population. The college had admitted its first black student in the 1850s, but by [Debbie] Ramirez’s time there, people of color comprised less than a fifth of the student body.”

How many POCs do Pogrebin and Kelly think should have been at Yale? According to the U.S. Census, the country barely reached 20 percent minority by the end of the 1980s. By miraculous coincidence, the ethnic composition of the Yale student body matched the country exactly. It’s almost as if the university was basing admissions on strict ethnic quotas!

It’s said that every generation thinks it invented sex. I say, every generation thinks it invented race and gender consciousness. Pogrebin and Kelly claim that “college campuses of the 1980s had yet to be galvanized by the identity and sexual politics that course through today’s cultural debates.”

Were they both in a coma in the 1980s?

In 1987, the year Ramirez and Kavanaugh graduated from Yale, Jesse Jackson led hundreds of protesters in a march on Stanford University chanting “Hey hey ho ho! Western Civ has got to go!”

The following year, the Times reported on a decades-long assault on the accepted canon of great literature as merely the choices of “elitist” “white men.”

Throughout the period that the authors imagine Yale was wall-to-wall white privilege, our media produced daily “Racism Updates,” leading to Joe Sobran’s parody of a New York Times headline: Earthquake Destroys New York; Women and Minorities Hit Hardest.

If Ramirez had applied to Yale Law School after college, she would have had a five times better chance of being admitted than a white applicant like Kavanaugh — simply because she had one Puerto Rican parent.

Talk about privilege!

This is based on a massive study of law school admissions in the 1990s conducted by Linda F. Wightman — again, intended to prove the opposite of what it actually did prove. Her study fell into the hands of Stephan Thernstrom, who analyzed the data, and his results were published in the New York University Law Review in 1998. (WHITE SUPREMACISTS, ALL!)

With the same grades and scores, Puerto Ricans were 5.3 times more likely to be admitted to a top-tier law school like Yale than a white applicant. Every ethnic group except whites got a boost — African Americans, Asians, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and “Other Hispanic.” The more prestigious the law school, the stronger the preferences.

To every color in the rainbow coalition: YOU’RE NOT BLACK! Affirmative action is supposed to be for the descendants of American slaves. See? We owe them something. Nobody else. Without the legacy of slavery, affirmative action is just institutionalized anti-white racism. By now, race discrimination against whites is de rigueur. Forget being embarrassed, this is race discrimination with attitude. And it’s all justified by the nonsensical phrase: “white privilege.”

If you mention it — citing such white nationalist front groups as Georgetown University, the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation, The New York Times and the New York University Law Review — you, too, could be a white nationalist.

Ann Coulter OPINION: Thanksgiving for Dummies…Sorry, I Mean College Professors


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Nov 27, 2019 3:45 PM

URL of the original posting site: https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2019/11/27/thanksgiving-for-dummies–sorry-i-mean-college-professors—p–n2557177

Thanksgiving for Dummies…Sorry, I Mean College Professors | Source: AP Photo/Steven Senne

As every contemporary school child knows, the first Thanksgiving took place in 1621, when our Pilgrim forefathers took a break from slaughtering Indigenous Peoples to invite them to dinner and infect them with smallpox, before embarking on their mission to fry the planet so that the world would end on Jan. 22, 2031. (Copyright: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez)

Consider this description of the Pilgrims’ treatment of the Indigenous Peoples:

“They were the worst of conquerors. Inordinate pride, the lust of blood and dominion, were the mainsprings of their warfare; and their victories were strained with every excess of savage passion.”

You’ve probably guessed — unless you are an American college student — that that’s not a description of the Pilgrims’ treatment of Indigenous Peoples at all. It is a description of some Indigenous Peoples’ treatment of other Indigenous Peoples, provided by Francis Parkman, the world’s foremost Indian scholar.

It was Indians, not Pilgrims, who let out the “Mohawk war-cry” that made the blood run cold.

This is why the Wampanoag had a lot to celebrate that first Thanksgiving. They were delighted to have such excellent (European) allies against the terroristic Iroquois and Narragansett.

The Pilgrims also had much to be thankful for. Of more than 100 passengers aboard the Mayflower, only 44 survived the first winter, felled by scurvy, malnutrition and the bitter cold. Even the ones who made it did so largely thanks to the friendly Wampanoag, who shared their food with the Europeans and taught them how to till the land.

The Puritans, who came soon thereafter, so loved their Indian compatriots that the great missionary John Eliot translated sermons for the Algonquians in their own language. Indeed, the very first Bible printed in the Western Hemisphere was Eliot’s Massachusett-language Bible, published in 1663, titled “Mamusse Wunneetupanatamwe Up-Biblum God.”

(For those interested in Coulter arcana, Eliot was an assistant of Rev. Thomas Hooker, the same Puritan minister that my ancestors followed to the New World.)

The warm relations between Pilgrims and the (mostly) gentle Algonquins doesn’t fit the White Man Bad thesis that is the entire point of all history taught in America today. In fact, as any sane, reasonable person can probably surmise: Some white men were kind, and some were cruel. Some Indians were neighborly — and some were bloodthirsty killers.

Parkman describes a typical Iroquois celebration that would cap off a war raid on their fellow Indigenous Peoples:

“The village was alive with sudden commotion, and snatching sticks and stones, knives and hatchets, men, women and children, yelling like fiends let loose, swarmed out of the narrow portal, to visit upon the captives a foretaste of the deadlier torments in store for them …. [W]ith brandished torch and firebrand, the frenzied multitude closed around their victim. The pen shrinks to write, the heart sickens to conceive, the fierceness of [the captive’s] agony … The work was done, the blackened trunk was flung to the dogs, and, with clamorous shouts and hootings, the murderers sought to drive away the spirit of their victim.”

The Iroquois, he writes, “reckoned these barbarities among their most exquisite enjoyments.”

[ASIDE: Compare Parkman’s thrilling passage to droning cliches like, “While America’s indigenous population at large is underrepresented in politics and popular culture, Native women are even more marginalized” (a current Harvard offering), and you’ll understand why the kids don’t like to read anymore.]

And here’s an Iroquois practice that university professors might want to steal and ascribe to the White Man — don’t worry, your students aren’t bright enough to figure out that you’re lying to them.

After killing “a sufficient number of captives,” Parkman says, the Iroquois “spared the lives of the remainder, and adopted them as members of their confederated tribes, separating wives from husbands, and children from parents, and distributing them among different villages, in order that old ties and associations might be more completely broken up.” JUST LIKE TRUMP!!!

Here’s one for the Womyn’s Studies Department: Having completely conquered the Lenape, the Iroquois humiliated the survivors by making them take women’s names.

Before the first European stepped off Mayflower, the Iroquois’ genocidal wars against their fellow Indians had already depopulated large parts of New England. Their murderous raids had scattered the farming tribes in all directions, often to their demise. “Northern New Hampshire, the whole of Vermont and Western Massachusetts had no human tenants but the roving hunter or prowling warrior,” Parkman writes.

The irony of the moron’s version of Thanksgiving is that the brave and honorable attributes of the American Indian are drained from all the PC stories. In the made-up history, Indians are only pathetic.

By contrast, the true story told by Parkman shows both the savagery and superstition, but also the courage and honor. Thus, for example, the Hurons “held it disgraceful to turn from the face of an enemy when the fortunes of the fight were adverse.” As the Indian captive of the Iroquois was being tortured alive, Parkman reports, he raises his voice in “scorn and defiance.” How’s that for machismo?

That’s the reason we name our sports teams and military armaments after Indians. It’s a tribute to their honor, intelligence and bravery. It’s why Americans love to boast of having Indian blood — even when it’s not true (and not only in order to land a professorship at Harvard).

But that’s not the image the left wants for Indians. Oh, no. They want to re-brand Indians as loser victims, in need of liberals’ tender ministrations.

Real Americans honor Indians and also honor the courageous Pilgrim settlers who brought Christian civilization to a continent, a miraculous union that we celebrate on this wonderful holiday. Happy Thanksgiving!

OPINION: He’s a One-Man Ukrainian Lobby!


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Oct 30, 2019 3:40 PM

He’s a One-Man Ukrainian Lobby! | Source: AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta

I have a confession. I behaved badly recently, and I’m just going to admit it.

As a guest at a dinner party in Georgetown, I stormed in and started bossing everyone around. First, I demanded that the foyer be painted a different color and wainscoting be added to the dining room. Then I had my hosts assemble their children so I could give them all different names. Before making my exit, I grabbed two legs of turkey off the entrée platter and stuffed them in my purse.

I have a second confession. None of that happened. But if it had, I would be exactly like Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman.

He was born in Ukraine and raised there until age 3 1/2, when he was invited to our country. As you’ve no doubt heard, he served in our military. Thank you for your service, Colonel! Now he is the top Ukrainian adviser on the National Security Council. Of all the people who could look out for the U.S.’s interests vis-a-vis Ukraine, we got someone who was born there.

As such, Vindman was permitted to listen to a phone call the president of the United States made to the president of Ukraine — a completely unnecessary, pro forma task. So, naturally, when he had a policy disagreement with President Trump pertaining to the country he was born in, he thought he had a responsibility to agitate for removal proceedings against the duly elected U.S. president, just as I might have taken issue with the carpets in the Georgetown townhouse.

For some reason, we keep hearing about Col. Vindman’s valor and patriotism. I don’t doubt that he’s a super swell guy. But unless I missed it in the newspapers at the time, I don’t believe he was elected president in 2016. In fact, there’s a specific constitutional provision that prevents Col. Vindman from ever being president: He wasn’t born here.

Study question: Why might the framers have added that clause?

It would be bad enough if Col. Vindman’s policy disagreement with the president had to do with U.S. policy on Mexico or North Korea. But it was about the country where Col. Vindman was born.

We’re always told that Democrats don’t have to prove wrongdoing by Trump — for example, under the emoluments clause, in his foreign policy negotiations or when he fired his FBI director. Rather, it’s claimed that Trump’s conduct creates the appearance of impropriety.

Well, having a Ukrainian-born analyst butt in to ensure U.S. foreign aid flows effortlessly to the country of his birth gives the appearance that he’s concerned about fairness to Ukraine. That’s not what this is supposed to be about. It’s supposed to be about what’s in the best interests of the United States. Worse, Vindman was dealing with the U.S.’s Ukrainian policy versus Russia, which Ukrainians hate because Stalin murdered millions of them. It’s like having an Armenian advise on whether we should be hostile to Turkey.

This is not the usual dual loyalty claim insultingly attributed to Irish or Jewish Americans who were born in this country. Lots of us have admixtures of other nationalities.

But when you were actually born in another country and that’s the precise policy matter you’re sticking your nose into, people are going to wonder if it’s really our national interests you’re looking out for.

Proposed Constitutional Amendment No. 1: Immigrants are required to wait a minimum of two (2) generations before bossing around the most successful, prosperous, free country on Earth, and fully three (3) generations before advising on our government’s policy toward the countries of their forefathers.

We also need a constitutional amendment directed at 10th-generation Americans who fancy themselves foreign policy experts. Foreign policy is the idiot’s shortcut to imagined erudition, the last refuge of the insufferable.

Sen. Lindsey Graham was on TV last week, bragging about how he’d been to Syria — Afghanistan? Iraq? Who cares! — 75 times.

Not one person who voted for Graham has the peace and contentment of Syrians on his Top Ten Concerns list. Like everyone else, South Carolinians care about their jobs, their safety, their neighborhoods, their country. But Sen. Graham wouldn’t sound like a deep intellectual if he went on TV and started talking about water treatment plants, despite the fact that clean drinking water is of far greater interest to his constituents.

It’s very romantic to think of yourself as a geopolitical chess player, jetting around the globe and staying in five-star hotels in Riyadh and Paris, chatting with dictators and reporting back your impressions as a Master of the Universe — I’m very concerned about the leadership of the Kurds … Richard Haas wrote a fascinating treatise about how our policy has been deficient in the following nine ways … I’ll be sure to bring that up next week when I’m meeting with the E.U.

These are the kinds of people who would join Mensa.

It would be annoying enough if government officials, whose salaries we pay, spent all their time working on the betterment of other nations, but at least everything turned out GREAT. In fact, however, they’re never right, they always make things worse, and they never pay a price because, again, no one cares.

Proposed Constitutional Amendment No. 2: Elected officials may take one government-funded boondoggle abroad for every three (3) trips they make to our southern border.

Ann Coulter’s Latest Book Resistance Is Futile!: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind is available on Amazon

OPINION: We, Too, Can Be a Failed Latin American State


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Oct 23, 2019 4:38 PM

We, Too, Can Be a Failed Latin American State | Source: AP Photo/Ariana Cubillos

The left’s enthusiasm for Third World immigrants isn’t only because they vote 8-2 for the Democrats. It’s that Latin American peasants seem uniquely amenable to idiotic socialist schemes. You probably think it’s beyond silliness for Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to keep promising FREE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL! NO PREMIUMS! NO CO-PAYS! ILLEGAL ALIENS, TOO! EVERYBODY GETS A PONY!

No one could be gullible enough to fall for that. I refer you to the economic powerhouse that is Latin America.

Based on hundreds of years of indigenous people voting for politicians who made similar promises, Latin America has become the dream factory that it is today. That’s why Tegucigalpa is practically a byword for “technological innovation,” Santiago was the picture of calm sophistication this weekend, and Caracas is the ultimate in modern conveniences.

Perhaps you missed the article in last Saturday’s New York Times on what socialism has done for the water system in Venezuela:

“The brick shack on the outskirts of Venezuela’s capital is crowded with tubs, jugs and buckets. The water they hold must last the family of eight for a week — but it’s not enough for frequent washing or flushing, so the kitchen is filled with greasy pots and the house smells of stale urine.

“And none of the water is treated, making diarrhea and vomit a regular occurrence.

“‘We practically live in the bathroom,’ said the mother of the family … [Her daughter] sat nearby, pale and listless, recovering from her latest bout of diarrhea just one month away from childbirth.”

Democrats: We need some of that Latin American magic!

Twenty years ago, 60 percent of Venezuelans had regular access to safe drinking water. Today, only 30 percent do.

How did this happen?
Answer: Poor Venezuelans voted for it. If we let them in, they’ll vote for it here, too. (Except 20 percent, who will be patriotic Americans, i.e. Republicans.)

That’s great news for Sanders and Warren! But it’s terrible news for the country.

Denouncing “squalid oligarchs,” Hugo Chavez promised Venezuela’s poor: “I will not rest until every human being who lives in this land has housing, employment and some way to manage his life.”

The poor were sold! In December 1998, Chavez was elected in a landslide, commemorated with this Seattle Times headline: “VENEZUELAN SLUM DWELLERS VOTE FOR CHANGE.”

As The Miami Herald explained, Chavez “crystallized anger and frustration among Latin America’s poor at free-market policies that have brought only limited prosperity.”

Bernie says he “wrote the damn bill” to give Medicare to all, but he was plagiarizing Chavez, who immediately implemented a “single-payer” system for health care in Venezuela. He set up free health clinics, opened military hospitals to the poor and deployed tens of thousands of government workers to deliver medical services to the barrios.

At Chavez’s invitation, thousands of poor people took up residence in hotels, warehouses and luxurious golf courses. As one of the squatters explained, “We just want a home for our children.” That could be the epitaph of every once-great country: It was for THE CHILDREN!

As you may have heard, this worked out fantastically well. Within a year of Chavez taking office, the economy had shrunk by 7.2 percent and unemployment was at 20 percent. A decade into this socialist paradise, the poor were poorer than ever. There were constant blackouts, food shortages and appalling infant mortality rates. (Much like what we’re seeing in California.)

Venezuela’s infant mortality from diarrhea alone has sextupled in the past 15 years, according to the World Health Organization. (That’s an estimate, on account of Chavez’s quick response to the crisis, which was to stop releasing public health data.)

Potable water, that most basic element of civilization, is virtually nonexistent. Today, sitting on top of the largest oil reserves in the world, Venezuelans are starving.

Chavez didn’t seize power in a military coup. There was no revolution. He wasn’t imposed on Venezuelans by the C.I.A.

He was the people’s choice, elected president in 1998 (with 56 percent of the vote), then re-elected in 2000 (60 percent), then again in 2006 (63 percent) and yet again in 2012 (54 percent). And that’s not counting all the regional, parliamentary, constitutional and referenda elections his party won, over and over and over again.

Like that other Latin American matinee idol, Eva Peron, Chavez destroyed a country by offering the poor pie-in-the-sky promises that were to be paid for by “the rich.” In both cases, it took only about a decade to turn two of the wealthiest countries in the world into two of the most dysfunctional.

In Mexico, the people voted for the Institutional Revolutionary Party for 71 straight years. Total economic failure, year after year. Yes, please, kick me again!

All of this would be of limited interest outside of psychological circles, except for the fact that these voluntary hellholes are adjacent to our country, which is why our southern border is always besieged with desperate Latin Americans.

They’re fleeing the very systems that they voted for, and which (80 percent) would willingly vote for again.

The key point is this: Everywhere in the world, the working class loves socialism — except the U.S.A. To the dismay of American liberals, their movement has always been bereft of the very proletariat that they claim to champion. Instead of truck drivers and longshoremen, Democratic meetings are full of divorcees, transgenders, vegans and college professors.

Recall that when student radicals tried to organize blue-collar workers in the ’60s, they ended up getting their heads smashed by building trades guys for protesting the war. Today, America’s working class wears a MAGA hat.

That’s why the Democrats are dying to fling open our southern border. As Lenin might have said, you can’t make an omelet without bringing in millions of poverty-stricken Latin Americans.

Ann Coulter’s Latest Book Resistance Is Futile!: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind is available on Amazon

Ann Coulter Opinion: Please, Please More Democratic Debates!


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Oct 16, 2019 5:15 PM

Beto at the debate | Source: AP Photo/John Minchillo

With all the rancor in politics these days, the CNN/New York Times Democratic debate on Tuesday night delivered a rare moment of comity: Twelve Democrats agreed, apparently without compensation, to appear in a Donald Trump ad.
Other points on which the Democrats came together in peace and harmony:
— Trump should be impeached.
— Abortion is great.
— Obamacare sucks.

At least we’re all finally agreed on Obamacare! Obamacare has given us a system — to quote Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont — “which is dysfunctional, which is cruel, 87 million uninsured, 30,000 people dying every single year, 500,000 people going bankrupt for one reason, they came down with cancer.” None of the Democrats disagreed with Sanders’ description of health care in American today, although they have slightly different solutions. I don’t mean to be rude, but I thought Obamacare was supposed to fix health care.

Millions of us were thrown off our health insurance plans by Obamacare, and now I find out that it didn’t even make things better for anyone else. The government intervenes, everything goes to hell, then Democrats cite the hell they created to demand another massive government intervention.

The motto of all socialist schemes should be: “This time, it will be different.”

The Democrats’ universal answer to the drug problem — which is actually a “Mexico Is on Our Border” problem — is to say they’d go after the pharmaceutical companies and then, in the next breath, demand that we legalize drugs.

In the midst of their crusading anger at the pharmaceutical companies, not one Democrat mentioned Purdue Pharma. You know — the primary culprit in the prescription drug epidemic, at least according to dozens of state attorneys general and hundreds of private lawsuits accusing the company of aggressively marketing OxyContin and hiding its addictive nature?

The Democrats are furious with pharmaceutical companies, “wealthy corporations” (Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s phrase) and “the rich” (any guy with an alarm clock). But not with a specific multibillion-dollar company that makes OxyContin, and the kazillionaire family that owns it, the Sacklers.

Speaking of which, last year, Beverly Sackler, the recently deceased matriarch of the company, made political contributions to both Sen. Warren, D-Mass., and Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J.

Some poor medical researcher working to find a cure for cancer will have to pay — but the Sacklers get off scot-free.

Another big policy disagreement concerned guns, specifically: Do we allow people to turn in their guns voluntarily or should the government confiscate them?

As with liberals’ comical inability to tell an AK-47 from a semiautomatic, the gun facts flying around Tuesday night were not always well-researched. Beto O’Rourke said, “This is a country that loses 40,000 of our fellow Americans every year to gun violence.” Wow. Not even close. According to the CDC, the number was less than 15,000 in 2017.

To liven things up, at one point, a smug Pete Buttigieg snapped at O’Rourke, “And I don’t need lessons from you on courage, political or personal.” This was in response to remarks not at all about Buttigieg’s courage. That’s gonna get old, fast.

Vice President Joe Biden bragged that he was “the only one on this stage who has taken on the NRA and beat them, and beat them twice. We were able to get assault weapons off the streets …”

Yes, and in direct response to that assault weapons ban opposed by the NRA, Republicans swept Congress in the very next election, winning control of the House for the first time in nearly half a century.

If you weren’t alive that glorious autumn evening in 1994, it was better than the November 2016 election. All night, there was breaking news, as one powerhouse Democrat after another lost his seat to a Republican. Every 15 minutes the GOP would set some new, jaw-dropping record. Thomas Foley, D-Wash., became the first speaker of the House to lose his election in 134 years. Republicans marched through the South like William Tecumseh Sherman, finishing off the “southern Democrats.” Tennessee went all red, with Republicans replacing the Democratic governor and two Democratic senators — including the Senate seat previously held by Vice President Al Gore. Not one Republican incumbent lost his seat.

Please, Joe, promise to “beat” the NRA again!

BUTTIGIEG: “No, this is really important, OK? On guns, we are this close to an assault weapons ban.”

This message was approved by Trump 2020.

Ann Coulter’s Latest Book Resistance Is Futile!: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind is available on Amazon

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: