Clinton Taking Heat For Her Run-Out-The-Clock Strategy

By William Teach September 3, 2016 – 7:08 am

There’s an old maxim, often attributed to Napoleon, “Never interfere with your enemy when he is making a mistake.” This seems to be Hillary Clinton’s approach post conventions. The only problem with this is that your opponent might get their stuff together

(The Hill) Hillary Clinton is facing questions about her campaign strategy as Donald Trump laps her on the trail and tightening polls show an increasingly competitive presidential race.

The Democratic nominee nearly vanished from the campaign trail in August to attend high-end private fundraisers and to prepare for the first presidential debate on Sept. 26.

At times it has appeared that Clinton believes she can run out the clock against Trump, who fell in the polls after a disastrous stretch following the Democratic convention.

But while Clinton remains the heavy favorite, Trump has rebounded in some national and battleground polls taken in late August.

You have to hand it to Trump: despite the mistakes he’s made, despite getting slaughtered by Clinton on the number of campaign offices, despite her having the majority of the media covering for her, he’s not only hanging in, he’s gaining again. Of course, part of that could be that she is a horrible, horrible candidate, who, in a normal year, would have been utterly knocked out due to her massive lies surrounding her non-sanctioned email server and the terrorist attack in Benghazi, as well as her blatant disregard for national security with her server. The notes on her FBI interview clearly show someone who cared little for security and anything other than her own convenience. If Team Trump is smart, they will hit her with this again and again.

Read them for yourself.

“It used to look like Clinton should just spend the fall at the International Space Station watching Trump implode, but it raises the question of whether you can disappear from the campaign trail without it having some effect,” said Marquette University pollster Charles Franklin, whose Wisconsin survey found Clinton’s favorability declining across every metric.

Clinton has gone days between events in some cases and hasn’t given a press conference in more than 270 days, a fact that Republicans have been eager to highlight.

She’s supposedly going to let the press on her big fossil fueled airplane. Will she actually talk to them and answer questions, though?

Meanwhile, a Washington Post/ABC News survey released this week found Clinton’s image hitting its lowest point in her 25 years of public life.

Clinton’s popularity has also plunged in surveys of Wisconsin and Pennsylvania – Rust Belt states that represent Trump’s best path to the White House.

If Trump wants to win, he needs to take the swing states and make sure he holds on to states that have historically gone Republican. If he can make her defend in Democratic states, all the better. He needs to put her on the defensive.

“She needs to come back out after Labor Day and make this about the compare and contrast between herself and Trump,” one confidant told The Hill.

Some of that, allies say, will come into play during the first debate. They say Clinton has made the most of her time off the trail by pouring through briefing books and working with adviser on her stagecraft.

According to one surrogate: “She’ll be driving the suitability question which is an important metric for a lot of undecided voters.”

The thing is, people know exactly who she is after her years in the public eye. A horrible person in it for herself. Will Trump take advantage of the opportunity? Time will tell.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Clinton Taking Heat For Her Run-Out-The-Clock Strategy »

Posted in Elections, Hillary Clinton | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach September 2, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible ocean rising hundreds of feet causing less by more dangerous hurricanes in the future, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post on some Special Snowflake professors unable to deal with climate change skepticism.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

South Carolina Town Will No Longer Tolerate Scary Clowns

By William Teach September 2, 2016 – 10:18 am

Apparently, It is running around

(USA Today)  No more clowning around.

That’s the message Greenville law enforcement officials sent to the clowns who have reportedly been sighted at apartment complexes across the county.

Addressing the incidents at a media conference Thursday, Greenville Police Chief Ken Miller said officers will arrest and charge anyone dressed up as a clown.

“It’s illegal. It’s dangerous. It’s inappropriate, and it’s creating community concern so it needs to stop,” MIller said.

Police have responded to four clown-related calls since Monday, two of which occurred at Shemwood Crossing Apartments. Another was reported on Deoyley Avenue in the Pleasant Valley community Tuesday afternoon.

They aren’t actually doing anything illegal, but, are freaking some people out. Something similar happened in Bakersfield, Ca, a couple years ago. Though, those clowns were really freaky. You can see some of those photos here.

Read: South Carolina Town Will No Longer Tolerate Scary Clowns »

Posted in Like, Gnarly, Dude | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Unsurprisingly, Warmists Link Hurricane Hermine To ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach September 2, 2016 – 7:19 am

You knew this was coming, right? This was one of those things that was easy to guess “yes” on the question “will the Cult of Climastrology link the storm to Hotcoldwetdry?” There are plenty of links to this, let’s go with uber-Warmists Eric Holthaus’ (who’s actually a pretty cool guy on Twitter, getting beyond the AGW stuff) article

Here’s What to Expect From Hurricane Hermine

…..

Hurricane Hermine is expected to hit Florida later tonight or early Friday — the first hurricane landfall there in a record-setting 3,965 days, a period that has coincided with massive statewide population growth and an increase in coastal vulnerability. As Andrew Freedman wrote today in Mashable, “Florida’s luck has run out.” (snip)

Florida’s current hurricane-free streak is nearly 1,800 days longer than the previous record-long Florida hurricane drought, and, historically, hurricanes have hit the state once every year or two, not once a decade.

Well, Warmists were utterly wrong on their predictions, so, can’t be ‘climate change’, right? Right?

As with every weather event in the current era, Hermine also has a climate change connection. Sea levels in northwest Florida have risen by about a foot in the last 50 to 100 years, thanks mostly to global warming — and that rise will add to Hermine’s flooding potential. The Southeast U.S., as a whole, has seen a 27 percent increase in the amount of rain during the most intense weather events over the past 60 years, as warmer temperatures are able to hold more water vapor. Meanwhile, even if experts are calling it “luck” that Florida went more than a decade without hurricane landfall, that aberration itself fits the profile of climate change: In general, climate scientists who focus on hurricanes expect slightly fewer storms, but warn that the ones that do form will be more powerful.

It’s barely above the 75 mph threshold to be a hurricane. There haven’t been more powerful storms. As for the sea rise, it hasn’t risen even a foot in the last 100 years. More like, specifically, .63 to .74 feet per hundred years. Which would be exactly average, and less than expected for a Holocene Warm period.

It’s like listen to Madam Zelda at the carnival. Though, she only takes a bit of cash from you once, rather than again and again and again by government fiat, which is what Warmists want to do.

https://twitter.com/mdswvguy/status/771563402334306304

https://twitter.com/stephenmarkley/status/771462663868149760

Plenty more where that came from

Read: Unsurprisingly, Warmists Link Hurricane Hermine To ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Seems Rather Upset Over Trump Getting Tough On Criminal Illegal Aliens

By William Teach September 2, 2016 – 7:03 am

The Editorial Board of the NY Times finally chimes in on Trump’s big immigration speech, one in which he made utterly sure that no one thinks he’s backsliding in the least

Donald Trump, Deporter in Waiting

Don’t be confused by the days of mixed messaging from Donald Trump’s campaign, or the head-feint trip to Mexico, where he was polite to the president. Speaking on Wednesday in Phoenix, Mr. Trump did not retreat from, or in any way soften, his promise to make 11 million unauthorized immigrants targets for deportation. His speech — in 10 points, embellished with statistics, ad-libbed asides and audience hollering and chanting — was as clear a statement of hard-core restrictionism as any he has given.

It was a mass-deportation speech, even if he avoided that phrase. Its intent was hard to miss.

Obviously, Liberal World has a big problem with deporting people who came to this country illegally, because they want to turn them into good little wards of the state so they’ll vote Democrat. Besides, who will clean the NY Times building and mow the yards of the Editorial Board members?

Trump should have laid out how he would go after those who employ illegal aliens, with big criminal and civil penalties.

The NYTEB delves into the first 5 of Trump’s plan

Leave aside the bit about the “impenetrable” wall, an applause line for an engineering fiction. To understand what’s so appalling and frightening about Mr. Trump, focus instead on some things he could actually try to do, if America gives him the job and Congress gives the money:

1. “Under my administration, anyone who illegally crosses the border will be detained until they are removed out of our country and back to the country from which they came. And they’ll be brought great distances.”

2. “We will issue detainers for illegal immigrants who are arrested for any crime whatsoever, and they will be placed into immediate removal proceedings.”

3. “My plan also includes cooperating closely with local jurisdictions to remove criminal aliens immediately. We will restore the highly successful Secure Communities program. Good program. We will expand and revitalize the popular 287(g) partnerships.”

4. “We’re going to triple the number of ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] deportation officers. Within ICE, I am going to create a new special deportation task force focused on identifying and quickly removing the most dangerous criminal illegal immigrants. … We’re also going to hire 5,000 more Border Patrol agents.”

5. “We will immediately terminate President Obama’s two illegal executive amnesties in which he defied federal law and the Constitution to give amnesty to approximately five million illegal immigrants.”

Seems like a good plan. Overall, it still misses that the law should go heavily after those who employ illegals, as well as making sure that those on VISAs vamoose once they expire, but, the EB is obviously vexed over these 5 (there are 10 in total)

Nos. 1 and 2 are a plan to add many tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of new prison beds, while also filling local jails to bursting. They’re a gift to the private, for-profit prison industry and will ensure that any arrests, even false ones, can be springboards to deportation.

And? What’s the problem? If they broke the law and have been caught, well, shouldn’t they be held until deported? Or, does the NYTEB simply want them immediately deported? Of course, they just want criminals released back into the population to commit more crimes. And trim their hedges.

The NYTEB also forgot to mention that much of #1 and #2 where focused on the actual hardcore criminals who are also illegals, not those who empty the trashcans at the NY Times building. Read the transcript.

For #3, they are rather upset over Trump wanting to go after sanctuary cities.

No. 4 is a gift to an ICE union that endorsed Mr. Trump, and a plan to make the most bloated federal law-enforcement bureaucracy, Homeland Security, even bigger.

Suddenly, the NYTEB has a problem with Big Government being big. Must be that pesky part of the Constitution that requires the government to protect the borders from invasion that’s giving them heartburn.

And No. 5 tells millions of immigrants — who were brought here as children, or have citizen children, and pose no threat — to be very afraid, because we will hunt you down and expel you, and we already know where you live.

It also means that people need to follow the law, which applies to those who are here illegally, something that most nations, including Mexico, do not tolerate, as well as the Executive Branch, which is rather lawless.

The entire speech, in fact, imagines that government at all levels will be used to hunt down and remove immigrants from their homes, families and jobs. Mr. Trump was describing a world of lockups and surveillance and fugitive-hunting squads, a vast system of indiscriminate catch-and-punish that works as hard to catch hotel maids and landscapers as it does gang members and terrorists.

Which is funny, because Liberals love the notion of punishing people who don’t believe in anthropogenic climate change, they love the kangaroo courts at colleges, where people can be accused of rape with little to no evidence and are not allowed to defend themselves nor hear the accusations, and they love to abuse people who have committed Wrongthink. Catching people have broken our laws, are deflating wages, committing crimes, and stealing people’s identities, causing citizens a lot of problems.

Sure, there are some good ones. Perhaps if they learned English, stopped advocating for the return of the American SW to Mexico, and stopped Demanding that we give them stuff, including citizenship, there would be more sympathy. And, they should have come to this nation the right way.

Nativists across the land were praising Mr. Trump’s immigration speech as wonderful, potent stuff. Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, an organization that wants to restrict immigration, called it a “real-world version” of what’s “necessary to control immigration.” If you saw Mr. Trump’s speech, and you care about the country and values of tolerance and human rights and weren’t disgusted, you were either fooled, or not paying attention.

The NYTEB should try going into most countries, including Mexico, illegally, and see what happens. They can cry and scream and caterwaul all they want about just wanting to be part of that nation, that they’re good people, that they’re in danger in their home nation. They’ll still be deported. Heck, they may actually be thrown in jail for a stay.

At the end of the day, though, Liberals really do not care about the illegals who are committing crimes. They don’t care about those who are serious felons. They just want more voters.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times Seems Rather Upset Over Trump Getting Tough On Criminal Illegal Aliens »

Posted in Illegal Immigration, Liberal World | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

Man Killing The Earth With Carbon Pollution Links Conservation With ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach September 1, 2016 – 4:07 pm

Warning: there’s autoplay video with ear damaging audio at the link

(AP)  Standing beneath the forest-green peaks of the Sierra Nevada, President Barack Obama drew a connection Wednesday between conservation efforts and stopping global warming, describing the two environmental challenges as inseparably linked.

Obama used the first stop on a two-day conservation tour to try to showcase how federal and local governments can effectively team up to address a local environmental concern like iconic Lake Tahoe, which straddles California and Nevada. Obama told a sunbaked crowd of several thousand in a small lakeside town that “our conservation effort is more critical, more urgent than ever.”

“When we protect our lands, it helps us protect the climate of the future,” Obama said, joined by Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, California Gov. Jerry Brown and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

Obama’s brief stop along the Nevada-California border came at the start of an 11-day international tour that will take the president to Asia for his final time as president. Throughout the trip, Obama is hoping to elevate issues of climate change and conservation as he works to lock in his environmental legacy.

Nothing says conservation like a long fossil fueled trip on jumbo jets, helicopters, and heavy limos with over a dozen fossil fueled vehicles coming with, while eating lots of fancy food not grown locally.

“When it comes to climate change, there’s a dire possibility of us getting off-course, and we can’t allow that to happen,” Obama said.

As someone in the comments notes

What a guy.

He’s willing to jet all the way around the World to lecture the peasantry on their emissions and how they must do more to reduce them…..

Yup, what a guy.

Read: Man Killing The Earth With Carbon Pollution Links Conservation With ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in Barry Obama, Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach September 1, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is horrible carbon pollution infused soda, kept cold by a horrible energy suck fridge, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Flopping Aces, with a post on Dems using illegals like they used blacks.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Say, Will ‘Climate Change’ Cause More Deadly Car Crashes?

By William Teach September 1, 2016 – 11:23 am

We have another case of Climarettes, a disease that causes Warmists to interject Hotcoldwetdry into every issues

(Daily Caller) The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) wants to know if global warming will increase the risk of fatal car crashes.

“To be precise, 7.2% more people died in traffic-related accidents in 2015 than in 2014,” reads a DOT blog post calling for independent analyses of traffic accident data. “This unfortunate data point breaks a recent historical trend of fewer deaths occurring per year.”

The blog post, written by DJ Patil of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Mark Rosekind of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, then asks a series of “key questions” on the future of car crashes they want answered by groups taking up their call to analyze 2015 data.

Patil and Rosekind also ask: “How might climate change increase the risk of fatal crashes in a community?”

Read: Say, Will ‘Climate Change’ Cause More Deadly Car Crashes? »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Good Grief: Warmists Now Blame Difficulty In Predicting Storm Tracks On ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach September 1, 2016 – 8:25 am

Let’s review: after the huge storm season of 2005, members of the Cult of Climastrology said it would be the new normal. Then, landfalling storms (tropical depressions, tropical storms, and full hurricanes) dried up almost immediately. They then stated that storms would be fewer but stronger. There’s been zero category 3 hurricanes to make landfall in the U.S. since October, 2005, and few in the Caribbean and Mexico. So then we were told that anthropogenic climate change was causing this, but doom is right around the corner! They blamed Superstorm Sandy on AGW, and said there would be more coming. Nope. It’s always a prognostication followed by excuses as to why it failed, further followed by a prognostication of future doom. They haven’t been particularly good on this prediction, eh?

They’ve further stated that ‘climate change’ will cause all sorts of different weather in different places. More flooding, more drought, tornadoes, snow, etc and so on. Their predictions have been less than stellar. Remember all the calls that snow will be a thing of the past? That droughts will be the new normal, which are then soon replaced by a return to the normal weather or even wetter?

Which leads to

Climate change ‘tug of war’ keeps scientists guessing on storm tracks

Storm tracks—regions where storms travel from west to east across oceans and continents driven by the prevailing jet stream—determine weather and climate in middle-latitude places like Chicago and New York.

“Changes in the position of storm tracks in response to anthropogenic climate change depend on how the equator-to-pole temperature gradient will change, and among the various factors affecting this gradient, cloud changes stand out as one of the important pieces of the puzzle,” said Tiffany S. Shaw, assistant professor in geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago. She is the lead author of “Storm track processes and the opposing influences of climate change,” a review of the latest research and current knowledge that was published Aug. 29 in Nature Geoscience.

In idealized and comprehensive climate model simulations, warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere leads the clouds in high latitudes to reflect more solar radiation, thereby cooling the earth’s surface in those regions and increasing the temperature gradient between the equator and the poles. In insolation (the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface) this would lead to a poleward shift of the storm tracks. Meanwhile, those same clouds tend to enhance the greenhouse effect, thereby warming the Earth’s surface in those same regions and decreasing the temperature gradient between the equator and the poles, producing an opposite shift (also, in insolation).

Ah. Computer models. They’ve worked so well. But, hey, let me ask: how have weather predictions worked out for, basically, forever? How often are meteorologists wrong? Take a look at your 10 day forecast, and see how it matches up with what actually happens. While it’s certainly better than 50 years ago, it’s certainly not perfect. Heck, look at predictions of tropical storms. Yesterday, the center track for Hermine put in on a line to go just east of Raleigh. That was around 6pm. Now, the centerline has it going through Wilmington, North Carolina. That’s a big shift. Remember, no one was really sure where Hurricane Katrina would land just 48 to 24 hours out.

But, of course, the CoC is telling us that because you drive a fossil fueled vehicle, predictions will get more difficult. Sounds more like they’re creating excuses as to why their current prognostications will fail in the future.

The most important message of this paper is that scientists are currently unable to satisfactorily project the response of storm tracks to anthropogenic climate change, said Edwin Gerber, associate professor of mathematics and atmosphere ocean science at New York University’s Courant Institute, who was not involved in the Nature Geoscience review.

See?

“This paper nicely sets forth the ‘state of the art’ in our knowledge of storm tracks, as well as some of our most promising ideas for making progress in the future,” Gerber said. “We need to know how the global circulation will change if we want to make accurate regional climate change predictions.

“I don’t like throwing the dice when it comes to my children’s future,” he added.

Yet, Warmists refuse to give up their own use of fossil fuels, which are explicitly blamed in the article, and go carbon neutral. Weird, eh? it’s almost like they don’t actually believe the stated causes are meaningful, and that there’s something else at play.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Good Grief: Warmists Now Blame Difficulty In Predicting Storm Tracks On ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times: This Economy Needs Donald Trump

By William Teach September 1, 2016 – 8:23 am

Wednesday, Donald Trump spent the day doing his whole illegal immigration schtick. First with a visit to Mexico to talk with their president, then with a big speech on illegal immigration, one which made sure people understood that he was not backsliding on deportations (until he backslides again, because he has long held the position of allowing non-criminal illegals the ability to have “touchback” amnesty). The speech itself was very good, and well worth the read. He laid out a 10 point plan, which also delved into stopping legal visa holders from dangerous areas who hold ideas incompatible with American society. Many parts of the speech stick out. Here’s one of them

We also have to be honest about the fact that not everyone who seeks to join our country will be able to successfully assimilate. It is our right as a sovereign nation to choose immigrants that we think are the likeliest to thrive and flourish here.

Meanwhile, the New York Times allows David Malpas, a senior economic advisor to the Trump campaign (yeah, I was kinda shocked that he had one, too), to write an op-ed, which received Internet front page status, all of which is rather unusual for the Fish Wrap

Why This Economy Needs Donald Trump

This year, the media has been focused largely on the election process — campaign managers, speaking styles, every slip and misstep. That’s been entertaining, but the policy differences between the two sides are much more important, and the most crucial difference may be over economic policy.

Donald J. Trump has campaigned very clearly for change — a policy upheaval to promote faster growth, repair the economic stagnation and end the corrupt pay-to-play system that favors the well heeled. Hillary Clinton has pledged to extend and build on the policies of the Obama administration.

There is no doubt who has the better plan. Our economy is growing at only 1.1 percent per year, a fraction of our average rate, and the Congressional Budget Office forecasts just 2 percent annual growth (in inflation-adjusted gross domestic product) for the next 10 years.

Yes, we went through a deep recession, but it ended in 2009. The recovery has been the weakest in decades, and the first that has actually pushed median incomes down. Business investment and profits are lower now than a year ago. Counterproductive federal policies squash small businesses with inane regulatory sprawl that affects hiring, taxes, credit and medical care.

All great points. Many have recommended that Trump spend the bulk of his time talking about the economy, and bread and butter issues. He’s still spending more time on illegal immigration, though, which, outside of his base (which wants a wall and deportation) and the far left Dem base (which wants amnesty), it is a low ranking issue.

To restart growth, Mr. Trump would immediately lower tax rates, including for middle-income voters, and simplify the tax code. Americans would be able to exempt average child-care expenses from taxes, and Mr. Trump’s administration would eliminate the death tax, which falls especially hard on some small businesses and farmers.

To help create a flood of new business investment and jobs, the Trump plan would reduce corporate tax rates to 15 percent while eliminating or capping many tax deductions. This would simplify the tax system, making us much more competitive with countries and a magnet for new jobs.

Mrs. Clinton wants to go in the opposite direction, depressing job growth with an uncompetitive corporate tax rate, higher taxes on estates and short-term capital gains, and a 4 percent surtax on the most successful individuals.

For all the complaints one might make about corporations, many of whom get sweetheart tax deals from both Republican and Democrat state administrations, many do not want to have their main headquarters in the U.S. because of our high tax rate (39%), the highest in the 1st World. There’s a reason they love going to places like Ireland (12.5 corporate tax rate). Lower rates equals more jobs and more taxes, because 39% of zero is zero (if we’re doing real math, not Common Core).

And, yes, Hillary would be more of the same that has made the American people think that the recession has not ended.

Critics of tax cuts say the government can’t afford his plan. But what the economy can’t afford is the current inept tax system, slow growth and Mrs. Clinton’s $1.1 trillion in tax hikes.

Government should learn to live within their means, much as successful businesses do. Much as families do. When they don’t they shut down or go into bankruptcy. Furthermore, when more people are working and more companies are making a profit, they actually pay more in taxes, and there are more being taxed. So more money heads to the state and federal treasuries. Wild how that works, right? People not working/companies not making money equals no taxes. Huh. Which is better? You can’t pull blood from a stone.

The scant economic gains in the past eight years are even weaker for most Americans than the G.D.P. data indicates because federal policy favored gains for the haves, not the have-nots. Your prosperity is increasing if you work in finance, issuing bonds or trading currencies, or you lobby or arrange government contracts. If not, you’ve most likely gone backward financially.

Wages are stagnant if not down. But the cost of living has mostly gone up. This is the reality for average citizens, who do not get to jet around on luxurious jumbo jets to attend fundraisers and play golf with celebrities and sports stars.

Voters will have an opportunity to decide for or against a government that’s failing on health care, taxes, trade, cost control and regulation. One candidate wants higher tax rates. The other would lower them. One candidate thinks the economic recovery has been successful whereas the other thinks it left millions of Americans out. One candidate has spent her lifetime seeking the presidency. Mr. Trump hasn’t.

As Thomas Jefferson said, “A little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” It’s time for one now.

There certainly could have been more detail, but the op-ed makes the point: Hillary is for more government intervention, more regulation, more taxes. Trump says he’s against those. He’s for freeing the economy. She’s for micromanaging it. It’s a good message.

Trump should spend his time on this message.

Read: NY Times: This Economy Needs Donald Trump »

Posted in Donald Trump, Economy, Hillary Clinton | 24 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove