The new civil war Democrats have declared on our country

Senator HarrisSenator Kamala Harris is a rising star in the Democratic Party. In a recent commencement speech at Howard University, Harris issued a call to arms urging her audience to rally behind the Democrats’ resistance to the Trump administration: “Graduates, indeed we have a fight ahead. This is a fight to define what kind of country we are, and it’s a fight to determine what country we will be.”

Ignore for a moment the impropriety of addressing a class of students as though they were Democratic Party operatives. Focus instead on the statement itself. The call “to define what kind of country we are” is an ominous agenda for America. Compared to other nations, America is absolutely unique in one regard: it is a country defined in its creation. Normally, nations have been formed on the basis of common origins, ethnicities, and languages – a modern form of tribalism. In contrast, America was created by peoples of diverse origins and ethnicities and on principles that were universal. The American union was forged in a set of founding documents that insisted on the equality of citizens – regardless of origins. The idea that creates the identity “American” is summarized in America’s official motto: e pluribus unum – out of many, one.

It took a Civil War and two hundred years of sacrifice and struggle to achieve a polity that approached this ideal. If one political faction is now able to redefine the ideal to conform to its own sectarian beliefs, the country we have known will cease to exist. But that is just what the current creed of the Democratic Party – “identity politics” – entails, and is why the current divisions in our political life seem so intractable. Identity politics is, in fact, the antithesis of the American idea. It is a reversion to tribal loyalties. It regards diverse origins – colors, ethnicities, genders and classes – as primary, and proposes a hierarchy of privilege based on them, which it justifies as a reversal of past oppressions.

It is not the proper role of an opposition party in a democracy to mount a “resistance” to a duly elected government and press for its overthrow at the very outset of its tenure. But that is precisely what the Democrats have done in the first months of the Trump administration. For the second time in its history, the Democratic Party has opted to secede from the Union and its social contract. This time there is not going to be an actual civil war because the federal government is now so powerful that whoever controls it will decide the outcome. The passions of an irreconcilable conflict are still present, but they are channeled into a political confrontation over the executive power.

In launching their resistance, Democrats rejected the honeymoon normally afforded to incoming presidents. Until now this tradition has functioned as something of a sacred political rite. Campaigns are by their nature divisive, and they inevitably exaggerate the differences between factions of the electorate. The presidential honeymoon is designed to reunite the contending factions as constituents of a shared constitutional republic. It allows an incoming president to take his place as the chief executive of all the people, to have his cabinet confirmed, and to launch his agendas before the normal contentions of a democracy resume. It ratifies the peaceful transition of power and reasserts the principle that as Americans we are one.

According to the Gallup organization, the normal duration of a presidential honeymoon in recent times has been seven months. The Democrats didn’t give Donald Trump seven seconds. While he was president-elect, they were already attacking him as a racist, a “white nationalist,” anti-immigrant, and anti-Muslim; also an anti-democratic “fascist”- a would-be dictator. His election was called illegitimate, the alleged agent of a Russian conspiracy. This meme swiftly metastasized into one of the most bizarre witch-hunts in our political history, a “red scare” without actual reds, in which Democrat after Democrat stepped forward to allege that Trump had colluded with Vladimir Putin to steal the election.

Trump did not get confirmation hearings for the team he was hoping to put in place. He got a witch-hunt instead, a series of attempted character assassinations directed at his nominees. Most outrageously, his candidate for Attorney General, Senator Jeff Sessions, was smeared as a “racist” by one Democratic senator after another beginning with Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. Yet Sessions’ public career reflected values that were quite the opposite. It included service as the attorney general of a deep south state, in which capacity he had prosecuted the Ku Klux Klan and desegregated the public schools. These acts reflected his actual commitment to civil rights. Schumer and his colleagues had served alongside Sessions for ten and twenty years, and knew very well that their accusations were defamatory and false. They persisted in them anyway.

So that no one would mistake their hostile intent, the Democrats’ attacks were accompanied by calls for Trump’s impeachment, despite the fact that he had hardly been in office. These were echoed in massive street demonstrations, organized and funded by core Democratic groups, which featured chants of “Not My President,” claims by celebrity speakers that Trump’s election was “worse than being raped,” and addled wishes to “blow up the White House.” Each protest – no matter its official organizing premise — was orchestrated to underscore the identity-driven accusations that the Trump regime was anti-woman, anti-black, anti-Muslim, and anti-immigrant. Trump and his supporters were in turn anathemized as members of a hostile tribe – “white nationalists.”

Behind this Democratic rage is the conviction that the Trump administration represents a reactionary throwback to the status quo ante before Obama began “fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” as he promised on the eve of his election. The new order towards which progressives think they are marching is called “social justice.” To Democrats the hierarchy of privileges they offer groups on the basis of ethnicity, skin color, and gender is “social justice.” It defines the society they intend to create, which in their eyes is mortally threatened by the Trump regime and its conservative supporters.

During the second presidential debate, there was a seminal moment illuminating this conflict. It occurred when Trump turned to the fifty million viewers in the television audience, and said, “You have to understand, Hillary has tremendous hatred in her heart.” He was referring to Clinton’s campaign remark that her opponents belonged in “a basket of deplorables – irredeemables,” whom she went on to name: “Racists, sexists, homophobes, Islamophobes, xenophobes….”  Trump, she said, had “raised them up,” and that made him “unfit” to be America’s president.

The condemnation of her political opponents is not unique to Clinton but is shared by Democrats generally. There is hardly a conservative in the country who has been in an argument with a so-called liberal who has not also been called a racist, sexist, homophobe, etc. — terms designed to force them out of decent society. They are expressions of the hatred progressives feel towards anyone who opposes their crusade to re-define America’s identity in the interests of “social justice.”

The theory behind “identity politics” is an ideology the political left refers to as “cultural Marxism.” This is a perspective that takes Marx’s view that society is divided into warring classes, and extends it to encompass races, genders, and ethnicities. It is a vision that regards one group’s success as another group’s oppression. “Social justice” — the proposed remedy for inequality and division — punishes oppressor groups by redistributing their incomes and privileges to the “under-represented,” “marginalized” and otherwise oppressed. It is a vision that disregards the accountability of individuals and ascribes to group identities the inequalities that are allegedly unjust.

The left has created a term of art – “people of color” – to promote its collectivist views on ethnicity and race. “People of color” is not grammatical English — we do not refer to “crayons of color” or “televisions of color.” It is a French construction, reflecting the way French people speak (personnes de couleur). “People of color” is an invention of ideologues to serve an ideological purpose, which is to organize the world into the categories of cultural Marxism  — into oppressors and oppressed. To understand its usage one has only to look to Mexico, a country whose illegal migrants have been one of the flashpoints of the war against the Trump administration, as Democrats have rallied to their defense.

Mexico is composed of two main ethnic groups: the descendants of the Spanish conquistadors who enslaved and slaughtered the indigenous Indians, and the descendants of the Indians. In other words, actual oppressors and actual oppressed. When members of these two groups cross into the United States, however, they both become “people of color,” therefore oppressed, and therefore deserving of special sensitivities, special allowances, special privileges – all without regard to their individual histories and merits. That is why criminal migrants from Mexico, who are here illegally, can commit felonies against Americans, including rape and murder, and become a cause for progressives and Democrats, who create “sanctuary cities” and policies to protect them. Because they are people of color and allegedly oppressed.

Maharajahs in India are also “people of color.” Islamic beheaders and crucifiers in Syria are “people of color” too. The whole world is people of color except … white people – the designated oppressors. Identity politics is both racist and totalitarian. It obliterates the individual in favor of the group. It removes the agency of individuals as subjects and turns them into objects. After this is understood, there is no longer any mystery as to why advocates of identity politics should come into existential collision with the American framework and its defenders, personified by President Trump.

The 2016 platform of the Democratic Party vows “a societal transformation” that will “end institutional and systemic racism in our society.” This is the ideology of cultural Marxism. “Institutional racism” as a systemic American problem is a political fiction. Americans outlawed “institutional racism” half a century ago with the passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965.  Any incidence of institutional racism today is actionable in the courts – the ultra-liberal courts that threw out Trump’s executive orders on extra-legal grounds because of off-the-cuff remarks he made on the campaign trail.

“Systemic racism” and “institutional racism” are anti-American mythologies that drive the Democratic Party’s political agendas. The Democratic platform and Democrats in general regard every social disparity as prima facie evidence of racial or gender oppression, and attribute such disparities not to individual decisions and performances but to nonexistent “policies,” which — if they actually existed — would be illegal.

 

[From an article by David Horowitz, published by FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE]

 

…………………………………………………

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Late-night Trump hate never cares about facts or truth

The left is still apoplectic that Trump won a presidential election that they believe should have been handed to heir apparent Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Nothing short of impeachment is a sufficient remedy.

 

The anti-Trump venom from the mainstream media has become so virulent that broadcasters and reporters alike risk becoming little more than extensions of the late-night “comedic” lineup, bashing the President without regard for truth or factual accuracy. And above all, most of these journalists realize, and sometimes even admit, that they want to help the Democrats win the next election.

The comparison between late night show hosts and the news media becomes stark when one compares Joy Reid’s new segment on MSNBC, “Flip This House,” to Bill Maher’s “Flip A District” on HBO in the run-up to the 2014 elections. The goal for both of them was to try to help Democrats win elections, with Maher admitting on his website that he was “outright meddling with the political process.”

“The 2018 midterm elections are still more than a year away, but the Democrats are already hoping to flip this house,” said Reid on her show, telling Democratic candidate Linda Weber, “So we will be paying attention to that race, and we will see if you can flip that House district.”

This comes very close to an endorsement. Has Reid or MSNBC registered as a Super PAC? Isn’t this an example of a corporation, Comcast, making significant donations to a political party?

It has gotten to the point with the news media, such as MSNBC and CNN, that broadcasters air anti-Trump messaging as vitriolic as late night show hosts’ so-called comedy routines. The point is to ridicule, not to report. And if reporting is necessary, the news media print fake news, as John Nolte documented for The Daily Wire in his article, “8 Facts Contradict the MSM’s Serial-Comey Lies.” At this point, it’s hard to distinguish the late-night comedy fake news from the primetime MSNBC or CNN line-up of fake news.

Take, for example, CNN’s Anderson Cooper, who said to Trump defender Jeffrey Lord that if Trump “took a dump on his desk, you would defend him.” Cooper later apologized, but his comment was indicative of the level of discourse that takes place regularly on MSNBC and CNN, when it comes to Trump. Mika Brzezinski questioned Trump’s patriotism. The First Amendment protects all of this speech, but the point is how much hatred and contempt it reveals toward the President and the more than 60 million Americans who voted for him.

Consider the coverage of supposed collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. In a May 24 NPR piece, “Why the Russia Investigation Matters and Why You Should Care,” the author argues that “Russia is accused, as [former CIA Director John] Brennan said, of not only trying to influence the election by hacking and releasing emails, but engaging in a full-fledged influence campaign through propaganda to get Donald Trump elected.” He continues, “That’s the assessment of 17 U.S. intelligence agencies.”

It is not the assessment of “all 17 intelligence agencies,” but rather the assessment of the CIA, FBI, NSA and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) only, all four of which were headed up by Obama political appointees. But this oft-repeated soundbite has been used to bolster the left’s passionate attempt to impeach Donald Trump. Former DNI James Clapper testified that “there were only three agencies directly involved in this assessment plus my office.” As we have reported, Clapper told the Senate that “We had no way of gauging the impact that—certainly the intelligence community cannot gauge the impact—it [Russian cyber activities] had on the choices the electorate made.”

But Bill Maher, who frequently talks about Trump voters living in a “fact-free bubble,” was still repeatedly peddling the “all 17 of our intelligence agencies say that” nonsense just last week, with his usual simian smirk. It had been debunked long ago, but Clapper had done so again just days before.

“Former CIA director John Brennan testified before the House Intelligence Committee…that he was not sure if there was any evidence of collusion between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign,” reports Breitbart. This is nearly a year into this phony investigation.

It may be that the mainstream media are loath to “normalize” Trump by reporting on him in an objective and fair manner. I recently pointed out how CBS News’ Bob Schieffer was challenged for possibly “normalizing” Trump because he called Trump’s speech “presidential.” Schieffer justified himself as trying to report objectively.

The left is still apoplectic that Trump won a presidential election that they believe should have been handed to heir apparent Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Nothing short of impeachment is a sufficient remedy.

Perhaps members of the media, aware of this Trump Derangement Syndrome, are wary of the fate of those who embrace, or even treat fairly, President Trump. For example, Jimmy Fallon, the host of NBC’s Tonight Show, still suffers from the aftereffects of tousling Trump’s hair and giving him what Salon called a “hair-raising softball interview.” “Was this Fox News?!?” screamed the Salon headline.

In contrast, Bill Maher has kept the hate going. When he brought Trump ally Boris Epshteyn on the show, he made a “gentlemen’s” wager that Trump would be “out by Christmas.” He also observed that “It looks like he [Trump] is trying to get impeached.”

CBS’s Stephen Colbert has given similar treatment to the President. “Fortunately, folks, there is a band of heroic go-getters who can lead us out of this dark time,” he said. “Congressional Democrats,” he added, continuing to mock.

“And as Mr. Fallon is well aware, viewers haven’t seen him in quite the same light since an interview he conducted with Mr. Trump in September, which was widely criticized for its fawning, forgiving tone,” reports The New York Times in a recent piece. It quotes Fallon as saying that “They have a right to be mad…If I let anyone down, it hurt my feelings that they didn’t like it. I got it.”

Colbert’s show has edged out Fallon in total viewership for the first time, but Fallon continues to outperform in the key demographic of adults 18 to 49.

What is clear, however, is that anti-Trump reporting boosts ratings. Business Insider reports that Fox fell to third “during primetime in the coveted advertising demographic of 25-54 year-old viewers, the first time it had done so in 17 years…” MSNBC and CNN outperformed Fox.

For the time being, Trump hatred drives ratings. But journalists, having stooped so low as to be indistinguishable from third-rate, hostile, buffoonish comedians like Maher and Colbert, should remember what it is they sacrifice (their integrity — if they have any left) as they attempt to cash in with the deranged Left.

 

[From an article published by ACCURACY IN MEDIA]

 

…………………………………………………

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Suggestion made to Trump to close White House press room because main stream media so intent on publishing negative and damaging fake news

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has become an expert on hostile media in his decades as a conservative on the national scene — and now he’s proposing a way for President Donald Trump to beat liberal bias that reporters won’t like at all.

In a terse interview conducted by phone with Politico, the former Georgia congressman said that the president ought to “close down the White House press briefing room” and that reporters “should be banished to a nearby Starbucks.”

“I am personally offended by the American news media,” Gingrich said. “I think they are destructive and disgusting. They are a danger to the country right now.”

Instead of a press briefing, Gingrich said White House spokesman Sean Spicer should field questions from the American people.  “Just say to the American people, ‘you get to choose,’” Gingrich said. He added that the closure would send a message “that the media is a corrupt institution and (Trump) is tired of being harassed by people whose only interest is making him look bad.”

Gingrich also said that the press “are nuts” and that reporters should not print any information they cannot attach a name to.  Gingrich’s terse remarks echo what he wrote in an op-ed for Fox News earlier this week, when he declared that “the President does not owe anything to the Washington press corps and the left-wing hypocrites who dominate today’s news media.”

“Since Watergate, the news media has acquired a steadily more arrogant attitude and has moved further and further to the left,” Gingrich wrote. “Today, they are adversarial opponents of conservatives — especially the Trump administration.  I learned the hard way as speaker of the House that I could not regularly meet with reporters on camera,” he recalled. “They set up an arena for gotcha questions. Reporters gained imaginary points for finding stupid, narrow, often irrelevant things to argue over. Instead of being an opportunity for a genuine public dialogue, the daily on-camera briefings became a bloody battleground — totally to my disadvantage. Within a few weeks, we were forced to stop.”

Gingrich’s words were harsh but true. This is a press corps that has declared since day one that it’s open season on the Trump administration.

Gingrich’s prescription may be a radical one, but something radical needs to be done about today’s rampant and blatant media bias.

 

[From an article published by CONSERVATIVE TRIBUNE]

 

……………………………………………….

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Timely quote from Mark Twain (over a hundred years ago)

Mark Twain said it best...

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Hillary starts “dark money” effort to mess things up in Washington a little more

Hillary seeks "dark money"

Failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton announces the formation of a nonprofit organization which aims to encourage citizens to “Resist, insist, persist, enlist.”

The former secretary of state unveiled her Onward Together 501(c)(4) non-profit via Twitter, claiming she’s spent the last few months reflecting on her defeat.

On the Onward website, the group claims its mission is to advance “the vision that earned nearly 66 million votes in the last election.”

“By encouraging people to organize, get involved, and run for office, Onward Together will advance progressive values and work to build a brighter future for generations to come,” the site states.

“The challenges we face as a country are real. But there’s no telling what we can achieve if we approach the fights ahead with the passion and determination we feel today, and bring that energy into 2017, 2018, 2020, and beyond.”

By registering as a 501(c)(4), Clinton’s new organization can accept unlimited amounts of money from donors whose names are not required to be disclosed, notes NTKnetwork.com.

501(c)(4)s differ from Super PACs in that the latter must disclose donors.

“If you are a donor looking to influence election but do not want to reveal your identity, the 501(c)(4) is an attractive option through which to send your cash,” writes the Washington Post.

Also, contributions to Onward “are not tax deductible as charitable contributions or as business deductions” as a result of the 501(c)(4) status.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary campaigned against “dark money” being permitted to influence politics.  NTKNetwork notes: “In October 2015, during a town hall meeting in Iowa, Clinton called 501(c)(4) groups ‘unaccountable dark money,’ and even used the left’s favorite boogey-men, the Koch brothers, as an example of a group that operates this kind of organization.”   Now she apparently thinks the more “dark money,” the better.

 

[From an article published by INFO WARS]

 

NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  Here’s another perfect example of what’s wrong with the Democrat approach to politics, and why Hillary Clinton lost the election to Donald Trump.  People were sick to death of hearing Mrs. Clinton speak out of both sides of her mouth.  She has always had a real problem with truth-telling and consistency.  Before the election she didn’t like “dark money” at all, but after losing the election, she thinks there is absolutely no reason not to pursue it.  Bill Clinton started a foundation to provide assistance to worthy causes, but almost immediately discovered the worthiest cause was himself.  (And now that he can’t peddle his connection to a sitting secretary of state any longer, not to mention to a new president, he’s trying to peddle himself as an author of third-rate novels to keep the cash flowing.  The Clintons have no idea what it means to live a life of honor and integrity.  To extend an offer of help to the Trump White House is the farthest thing from their minds; all they can think of is how to impede and destroy anything Mr. Trump wants to do. Of course, Hillary calls it “building a brighter future for generations to come,” but that’s just another example of her inability to distinguish truth from lies.)

 

…………………………………………………..

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Clinton and Obama doing nothing today but impeding Democrats

Who are President Donald Trump’s two best friends in politics?

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Yeah, I know what you’re thinking. You see their smirks and those six bloody elbows between the three of them, and you figure this is no relationship.

But it is a relationship that works for the president because they keep bringing up his favorite subject. And it works fine for Barack and Hillary because it fills their egos with a mighty wind.

It just doesn’t work for the Democratic Party or for the USA.

It is a relationship that benefits Trump, because every time Obama or Clinton open their mouths, America is reminded of what was rejected in 2016 — Clinton’s presidential hopes and Obama’s dreams that she’d keep his “legacy” intact…whatever that legacy might be. (NORM ‘n’ AL Note: Most Americans, if they are still able to be objective and honest after eight years of being lied to by both Obama and Clinton, know there is no legacy whatsoever.)

Trump doesn’t much want to talk about Washington Republicans peeling the skin off his populism. They’ve been peeling Trump the way a crafty TV hillbilly might peel an apple, sitting on a porch swing, telling stories in a bad sitcom with a pig named Arnold and canned laughter.

But if there’s one thing Trump loves talking about, it’s the 2016 election, and how the media was (and is) against him, and how those snotty liberals swinging their basket of deplorables lost the working class and blue-collar Midwestern states.

So what do Hillary and Barack do? They keep serving up 2016 on the tips of their silvery tongues.

They feed their egos and get face time, and Barack spins some fantasy about actually caring about Chicago.

And Hillary, having announced that she’s finally come out of the woods to visit us, spins us her favorite Russian fairy tale.

Entertaining, yes, but it hurts the Democratic Party. By refusing to go away, they prevent the party from evolving. And without developing some cogent theme besides Boiling the Rich, and Hating Trump, without grooming and nurturing new vibrant personalities, the Democratic Party is in serious trouble.

Jealousy isn’t a strategy. Envy and identity politics and obstructionism aren’t either. Even the amusing symptoms of Trump Derangement Syndrome get old. Months of hysteria and primal screams and jabbering can dull the senses of sensible people. Soon, it will jump the shark, as late-night TV jester Stephen Colbert jumped it the other day, jumping hard up and down on his corporate advertisers.

Yet as long as Barack and Hillary haunt us, the Democrats can’t grow. Yes, they’re beloved by their partisans. And each time they appear, you’ll find adoring pundits wagging their tails like Labrador puppies, wetting the carpets with joy.

But it doesn’t help the Democratic Party. It helps only Hillary and Barack.

Smart Democrats understand this. They see Obama casting himself as some kind of Jedi master of young community organizers — as he cashes in and they groan.

They see Clinton as some Blanche DuBois in a pants suit, spinning her airy fantasies and believing them even as she dredges up all those painful subjects, from FBI Director James Comey to her thousands of classified emails on unsecured servers.

Smart professional Democrats see all this and wonder: “For the love of God, will they please just go away?” But they won’t. They’re too needy, like a pair of Nosferatu drawing sustenance from Democratic young.

Obama visited Chicago and promoted plans for his Great Temple to Himself, also known as his presidential library, near a stunning new golf course proposed for Jackson Park.

The original temple design reportedly wasn’t flashy enough for Obama, so a grander one was sketched, and he may even visit, with his golf clubs. Here’s how the Obama Temple should be built: with a series of reflecting pools, and along the edges, statues of Obama at different stages of his life, so that he might stare into his reflection for all of eternity.  NORM ‘n’AL Note:  Eternity is soon going to become the biggest problem of Obama’s miserable life, as he finally sees only in his rear-view mirror what he might have made of it, but didn’t. The same will certainly become true for Hillary as well.

But outside the Obama Temple, Chicago remains a violent bloodbath, innocents and thugs dropping every day in the city’s street gang wars. He did nothing about it as president for eight years. There was talk, yes, but nothing real, no jobs, nothing.

There should be a sign out front: “Obama helped Iran more than he ever helped Chicago.”

Every day and every night, the West and South sides bleed and roll over on the sidewalks, another deadly spring turning into another deadly summer.

And Hillary? When she announced, in that chirping voice, that she’d come out of the woods, I tried not to think of a tiny hut on chicken feet, magically moving from glen to glen. And the other day she told another Russian fairy tale of her own. She blamed the Russians hacking into the DNC emails for her loss. And Comey for disclosing another investigation into her own classified emails just before the election. And she insisted that she would have been president if the election had been held Oct. 27.

It was pathetic.

If “the election had been on October 27, I would have been your president,” she said. “And it wasn’t.”

And if there were no iceberg, we’d never remember the Titanic.

David Axelrod, a crafty pro, the Merlin who turned Obama into a president with one speech, wished she’d just stop talking.

“It takes a lot of work to lose to Donald Trump,” Axelrod told CNN, adding that no one in America wants to relive the election, “except the combatants who keep going back to it.”

But she loves it back there, doesn’t she? And so does President Trump.

 

[From an article by John Kass, award-winning columnist of the Chicago Tribune, which appeared on NEWSMAX.COM]

 

………………………………………………….

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

 

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized