Beggars Can’t be Choosers

Watching the members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) attempting to either exonerate or crucify Donald Trump… depending on which side you’re on… it is necessary to remind ourselves over and over again what this is all about and what is at stake.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union in the early ‘90s, many of the Warsaw Pact nations of eastern Europe have been used as pawns in the endless post-Cold War chess game between NATO and the Russian Federation.  While the U.S. and its NATO allies have attempted to nourish the seeds of freedom and democracy in countries such as Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, and others, the Russian Federation, led by former KGB Colonel Vladimir Putin, has continued to agitate throughout the region, hoping to one day regain its Cold War dominion over Eastern Europe.

One of Russia’s most brazen moves has been the invasion of eastern Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea in February and March 2014.  That incursion set in motion a series of events that has culminated in the current attempt by Democrats to impeach the president of the United States.

The Ukrainians, ill-prepared to withstand the Russian onslaught, appealed to the United States and its NATO allies for military assistance.  Barack Obama, implementing his preferred “whistling past the graveyard” policy for dealing with international troublemakers, sent supplies of blankets and MREs (Meals Ready to Eat).  No war-fighting materiel was sent and for a period of three years the Ukrainians suffered heavy losses on the battlefield.

Throughout 2016, the Ukrainians were fully aware that the American people were about to elect a new leader… either former secretary of state Hillary Clinton or businessman Donald Trump.  And although they judged either to be far preferable to the Obama administration, in terms of their willingness to supply anti-tank weapons and other lethal weaponry, they knew that if they were to avoid returning to the smothering embrace of their Russian neighbors, they would have to establish a new bilateral relationship with the U.S.  Their greatest mistake was to assume the truth of what they were reading in the New York Times and the Washington Post… that Hillary Clinton was destined to be the next president of the United States.  Wrong!!

Soon thereafter, when the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) detected friendly signals emanating from Ukraine, a DNC contractor, a Ukrainian American, Alexandra Chalupa, paid a visit to the Ukrainian embassy in Washington.  The purpose of her visit was to solicit dirt on Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, establishing the appearance of a link between Trump and the Russian leadership.   According to the Ukrainian ambassador, Valeriy Chaly, the DNC contractor also sought to arrange for Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko to promote the appearance of a Trump-Putin relationship by commenting on Manafort’s Russian consulting activities during a visit to the U.S. during the 2016 campaign.

Ambassador Chaly also stated that, at the time of the 2016 contacts, the embassy knew Chalupa primarily as a Ukrainian American activist and learned only later of her ties to the DNC.  As such, the embassy considered her efforts to be a clear violation of a treaty between the U.S. and Ukraine signed on July 22, 1998, a treaty that obligated both countries to root out corruption whenever and wherever it was found in the bilateral relationship.   

So, how do we make sense of all this?  According to a Real Clear Politics report published on October 4, 2019, it was in December 2013 and February 2014 that vice president Joe Biden was assigned to serve as the Obama administration’s “point man” for U.S. relations with China and Ukraine, respectively. 

On December 2, 2013, Biden flew to Beijing, presumably to formalize his position as “point man” for U.S.-Chinese relations.  Flying with him on Air Force Two was his son, 43-year-old Hunter Biden.  According to author Peter Schweizer in his book Secret Empires – How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends, the Bidens returned to Washington just ten days later.  On that date, it was announced that the Chinese had agreed to provide an infusion of capital in the amount of $1billion (later increased to $1.5 billion) to a small private equity firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, which was underwritten by Christopher Kerry, the stepson of former secretary of state John Kerry, and operated by Hunter Biden and his business partner, Devin Archer.  

When questioned about what appeared to be a high-dollar enrichment scheme, designed to benefit the scions of the Biden and Kerry families, and others, Biden responds, unfailingly, that his son has not received a single dollar from the Chinese.  Biden must have learned how to parse words from the King of Parsers, Bill Clinton.  Of course, Hunter Biden has not been paid a single dollar by the Chinese.  But when Rosemont Seneca Partners begins to realize long term profits from their private equity lending activities, the income from those investments will be enormous.   

Schweizer tells us in “Secret Empires” that, just two months after Joe Biden was made “point man” for U.S.-Ukrainian relations, Hunter Biden and his business associate, Devin Archer, were appointed to the board of directors of Burisma Holdings Ltd, a notoriously corrupt Ukrainian energy company.  According to court documents obtained by Peter Schweizer, both men were compensated at the rate of $53,300 per month, even though neither man had any background or experience in the energy industry.

Almost immediately, Hunter Biden’s role at Burisma raised eyebrows in Ukraine and in the Washington’s foreign policy community.  However, nothing was done to mitigate the appearance of a major conflict of interest.  Schweizer tells us that, “Interviews with more than a dozen people, including executives and former prosecutors in Ukraine, paint a picture of a director who provided advice on legal issues, corporate finance, and strategy during a five-year board term which ended in April of this year.”  Those interviewed also said that Hunter Biden’s presence on the Burisma board didn’t protect the company from charges lodged against its owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, a multimillionaire former minister of ecology and natural resources… charges of tax violations, money-laundering, and license fraud during the period in which Zlochevsky served as a cabinet minister.

Then, on April 21, 2019, President Zlochevsky was defeated for reelection by Volodymyr Zelensky, a popular Ukrainian actor and TV personality, prompting a congratulatory telephone call from Donald Trump on July 25, 2019.  This was followed by a letter from an anonymous “whistleblower” who charged that, in that July 25 conversation, Trump used the threat of losing $400 million in U.S. military aid to pressure Zelensky to open a probe into possible corruption involving Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.  However, true to his reputation for doing the unexpected or the unconventional, Trump was quick to release a transcript produced by two separate simultaneous translators who listened in as Trump and Zelensky spoke.  The operative portion of the transcriptions quote Trump as saying, in part: 

“I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.  I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it.  There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation…  I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it.  As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine.  Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.”

No reasonable person would describe Trump’s words as being extortionary, threatening, or in any way an attempt at a quid pro quo.  But that is how the implacable Democratic opposition sees it, prompting Democrats to vote overwhelmingly in favor of a series of impeachment hearings, on the basis that Trump had threatened to withhold $400 million in U.S. military aide from Ukraine if they failed to investigate official corruption by a political rival, Joe Biden.

To the contrary, and the argument that congressional Republicans fail to make, is what any reasonable person would conclude.  When a U.S. president speaks with a foreign leader, he speaks first and foremost as president of the United States.  The fact that he also happened to be a candidate for reelection, and that the investigation he requested might damage the political fortunes of a major rival for the U.S. presidency, was merely coincidental.  In requesting an investigation of the Ukrainian business activities of a U.S. citizen, or citizens, Trump was simply doing his job; he was following the dictates of the July 1998 anti-corruption treaty.  

Another aspect of the Trump impeachment farce that Republicans totally fail to exploit is the question of the existence of an anonymous “whistleblower.”  Instead of proceeding from the assumption that the Democrats are speaking the truth when they claim that there is, in fact, a “whistleblower,” Republicans should be going on the offense by questioning whether or not there is, in fact, such a person… or was the whistleblower letter produced by Adam Schiff (D-CA), chairman of HPSCI, and his staff of anti-Trump radicals? 

If there is systematic corruption in U.S.-Ukrainian affairs, it is not corruption with the Trump family name on it; it is corruption with the Biden family name written all over it.  In fact, members of Congress and the mainstream media are in possession of a videotape in which Joe Biden boasted at a 2018 Council on Foreign Relations conference that he had once threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees if Ukraine failed to fire a federal prosecutor who was getting close to unearthing Hunter Biden’s Ukrainian business activities… a clear quid pro quo.

 Now, just one year later, Democrats are attempting to throw Trump out of office because they support the notion that the Ukrainians should be in a position to receive $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, whether or not they agree to investigate corruption in a Ukrainian energy corporation with close ties to the Biden family.  It appears that Trump is now in a position to remind corrupt Democrats and self-serving Ukrainians of the old adage that, “Beggars can’t be choosers!”


Paul R. Hollrah is a retired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College.  He currently lives and writes among the hills and lakes of northeast Oklahoma’s Green Country.

Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment

Are We There Yet?

When my children were still quite young, we regularly spent a week of our annual vacation with our families in St. Louis.  Needless to say, the 16-hour drive from our home on the Philadelphia Main Line was a long and tedious experience for our two young sons, who shared the back seat with their little sister.  Invariably, when we had covered only about half the distance between Philadelphia and St. Louis, we began to hear the plaintive question, “Are we there yet?”   

What brought that experience rushing back to mind was a July 12, 2016 column by David Brooks of the New York Times, titled, “Are We on the Path to National Ruin?”  In his column, Brooks wrote, “I never really understood how fascism could have come to Europe, but I think I understand better now.  You start with some fundamental historical transformation, like the Great Depression or the shift to an information economy.  A certain number of people are dispossessed.  They lose identity, self-respect and hope.

“They begin to base their sense of self-worth on their tribe, not their behavior.  They become mired in their resentments, spiraling deeper into the addiction of their own victimology.  They fall for politicians who lie about the source of their problems and about how they can surmount them.  Facts lose their meaning…”  Brooks concludes, “Once facts are unmoored, everything else is unmoored, too.  People who value humility and kindness in private life abandon those traits when they select leaders in the common sphere.  Hardened by a corrosive cynicism, they fall for morally deranged little showmen.  And then perhaps there’s a catalyzing event.”

As I read those words I couldn’t help but think that I have never read a more apt or a more devastating description of the Democratic Party, the wretched legacy it has created for itself, and the cancerous impact it has had on our American culture.  And what, I asked myself, could be the fearsome “catalyzing event” that Brooks foresaw? 

What Brooks foresaw in 2016 is now happening in Washington, DC, planned and implemented by truly evil men and women such as former CIA Director John Brennan, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, and hundreds of other co-conspirators and their socialist/communist fellow travelers.     

Writing for The Jewish Voice in their October 30, 2019, edition, Caroline Glick describes the vast transformation that has occurred in the Democrat Party during the past two decades… a transformation that has made us a vastly different country than we were prior to the year 2000.  She writes:

“Until 2000, the peaceful transition of power in the wake of elections was a feature of American democracy that everyone took for granted.  In 2000, the Democrats shifted.  They refused to accept the election results in Florida that gave Bush his victory in the state… and through it, in the Electoral College… until the Supreme Court ruled that the results were legitimate.  Even afterwards, many Democrats considered Bush’s victory and his presidency illegitimate.”

As a member of the 2000 U.S. Electoral College, having been elected by Republican leaders in a statewide election, I was very much interested in the outcome of the electoral dilemma created by the extralegal interference of the Democrat-dominated Florida Supreme Court. 

As I watched the angry mob of Gore-Lieberman demonstrators as they filled the streets outside the U.S. Supreme Court, demanding that the court allow the recount to proceed, I had just one thought:  Did those mindless demonstrators not understand that, when all is said and done, the only thing that stands between us and the barrel of a gun is the U.S. Supreme Court?  And when the court ruled in the only way they could… that to recount the votes in only the four most heavily Democrat counties in Florida was a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution… Democrats charged that the Court majority was acting along partisan lines.

However, in the sixteen-year period that followed, the Democrat Party underwent a major radicalization.  As Glick describes it, “The day after the (2016) election, Democrats coined a new term in American politics: ‘resistance.’  Until then, the side that lost a presidential election was the ‘opposition.’  But the Democrats don’t simply ‘oppose’ Trump, they ‘resist’ him.”

Glick continues, “The distinction is profound.  An opponent recognizes the basic legitimacy of the person he opposes.  A resister does not.  The purpose of the anti-Trump resistance is not to offer an alternative path for governing.  It is to nullify Trump’s presidency by, among other things, delegitimizing and dehumanizing Trump, his family, his associates and supporters.  The resistance seeks to paralyze Trump’s presidency, to prevent him from wielding the power of office, and (to) oust him from that office as quickly as possible.”

With each new day producing yet another sordid chapter in the seemingly endless saga of Democratic Party criminality… best typified by the countless crimes of Bill and Hillary Clinton…  the party that was founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1791 has become a lawless enterprise.  Jefferson and Madison could never have visualized the evolution of their party into a criminal conspiracy that consistently attacks constitutional principles and uses fraud, violence, and intimidation in order to win elections and maintain themselves in power.  Faced with the alternative of doing what is best for the country or doing what is best for their party, Democrats invariably choose to do what is best for their party.

In terms of ethics and morality, the Democratic Party has been in decline since the day it was founded.  As the party of slavery, secession, and segregation, Democrats supported the denial of basic human rights to an entire ethnic minority.  Following the Civil War and throughout the entire period of reconstruction, Democrats continued the denial of basic human rights through the enactment of Black Codes and Jim Crow laws.  

Then, when the Brown v. Board of Education decision ushered in the civil rights era and Democrats found they could no longer lynch African Americans and white Republicans with impunity, they turned their attention to such things as plundering the rich, dumbing-down our children, murdering post-partum infants, desecrating the American flag, and promoting marriage between same-sex partners.  And when delegates to the 2000 Democratic National Convention booed a color guard of Eagle Scouts carrying the American flag, it was clear that they had sunk to an all-time low.

So, what is it that has caused Democrats to become so loathsome that they would seek to remove a sitting president by engaging in bold-faced lies and outright deception, denying the president and his Republican supporters the ability to cross examine his accusers and to subpoena their own witnesses… the most basic legal rights available in any court in the land?  

The answer may lie in the results of an October 2019 Pew Research survey which tells us that, in 2009, when Barack Obama entered the White House, 68% of white Democrats described themselves as Christians, 24% claimed no religious affiliation, and 7%  claimed to be members of other religious groups.  However, just ten years later, in 2019, after nearly a decade-long Muslim-friendly administration in the White House, only 47% of Democrats call themselves Christians, 42% claim no religious affiliation, and 10% are members of other religions.  Conversely, the same survey showed significantly different numbers among Republicans.  According to the Pew survey, 81% of white Republicans now describe themselves as Christians, 14% are unaffiliated, and just 4% are affiliated with non-Christian religious groups.

As Patrick Henry once said, “Bad men cannot make good citizens.  It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains.  A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom.  No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.” (A.K.A. Conservatism)

So, when David Brooks asks, rhetorically, “Are we on the path to national ruin,” the answer is an unequivocal “yes.”  But Brooks goes on to suggest that this long and painful decline is followed by a “catalyzing event.”  Democrats have attempted to destroy Donald Trump by financing the preparation of a dossier of falsehoods; they’ve attempted to link his electoral success to a false charge of “Russian collusion;” and they’ve twisted a totally appropriate conversation with a foreign leader into grounds for impeachment.  In doing so, they have developed a level of hatred and discord among the American people such as we’ve not experienced since the Civil War.  Has fascism finally come to full bloom in America?  Could it be that history will judge the unjustified impeachment of Donald Trump to be the American version of Kristallnacht?  Occurring as it is on the 81st anniversary of Germany’s descent into fascism, is it too farfetched to ask, “Are we there yet?”  And are the tyrants hard at work forging our chains?
  

Paul R. Hollrah is a retired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College.  He currently lives and writes among the hills and lakes of northeast Oklahoma’s Green Country.

Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment

Some Perspective on Lynching

Donald Trump does not share many identifiable traits with former president George W. Bush, or with Bush’s late father, George H.W. Bush.  But there is one confounding trait that all three men have regularly exhibited during their time in the White House… a trait that leaves their friends and supporters thoroughly perplexed.  I refer to their apparent inability to respond to Democratic slights or insults with “biting” responses.  Whenever Democrats unwittingly give Republicans an open opportunity for a knockout retort, Republicans invariably treat the opportunity as if it were a sexually transmitted disease. 

For example, in July 1990, after haggling for months with congressional Democrats over spending cuts vs. tax increases, the matter was ultimately resolved at an “economic summit” held at Andrews Air Force Base.  At that summit, Democrats agreed to specific spending cuts, while Bush agreed to tax increases, abandoning his famous “read my lips; no new taxes” pledge and setting the stage for his defeat in 1992.  Bush shook hands on the deal with House and Senate Democrats and returned to the White House to await the agreed-upon legislations. 

When the spending bills arrived on his desk, he signed them into law.  He then leaned back in his chair to await the promised spending cuts.  He waited… and waited… and waited.  But, as might be expected, no spending reductions ever arrived.  It was a perfect example of the sincerity of a Democratic handshake.  It was also an object lesson that he and George W. had available to them in subsequent years.  But either they failed to remember the duplicity of 1990, or they were too nice or too dumb to recognize its value as a political weapon.

Now, in October 2019, nearly thirty years later, Republicans have been given a stunning invitation to let every American citizen, especially those in the African American community, understand the true history of the Democratic Party.

In an early morning tweet on Tuesday, October 22, Trump expressed his anger and frustration with the totally unfair and illegitimate process that House Democrats are using in their attempt to justify his impeachment.  He tweeted, “So someday, if a Democrat becomes President and the Republicans win the House, even by a tiny margin, they can impeach the President, without due process or fairness or any legal rights.  All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here — a lynching.  But we will WIN!”

To put Trump’s use of the term “lynching” into some context, it is first necessary to recognize that, according to archival statistics at Tuskegee Institute and at the NAACP, between 1882 and 1968, there were 4,743 recorded lynchings in the United States.  Of these, 3,446 were blacks, and 1,297 were whites… a great many of them white Republicans.  So, the question arises, how many white Republicans have Democrats murdered, for no better reason than that they disagreed with them politically?  And how many Democrats have Republicans murdered in response? 

So, who were these mass murderers?  In their condemnation, while hoping to put a respectable face on the Democrat Party and their destructive paternalism of black people, NBC noted that, “The president’s use of ‘lynching,’ which elicits a time when black Americans were murdered by extrajudicial white mobs, was the subject of immediate blowback.”   When we consider that white Democrats have gone to great lengths for the past 154 years to hide the fact that they were the principal opponents of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments…. outlawing slavery and giving the former slaves citizenship and voting rights… as well as the authors of the Black Codes and the Jim Crow laws, to say that their paramilitary auxiliary, the KKK, was nothing more than an “extrajudicial white mob” takes political correctness to a never-before-seen level of silliness.

Needless to say, Trump’s use of the term “lynching” brought immediate condemnation. Representative Barbara Jackson Lee (D-TX) said, “For him to say something like that was disgusting, reflects his insensitivity toward the historical tragedies of this country…”  To add a bit of perspective to her criticism, one would have to ask Ms. Lee, “Whose sensitivity?”   What sensitivity have Democrats, black and white, shown toward the mindless brutalizing of the black race by a Democratic paramilitary auxiliary, the KKK?  The truth is, most black people regularly vote for candidates of the same party that committed unspeakable acts of cruelty against their forebears. 

For example, in May of 1918, there were a series of lynchings in Georgia.  When Mary Turner, who was nine-months pregnant at the time, complained that she was going to see to it that the white men who lynched her husband would be prosecuted, a mob dragged her from her home, tortured her, and hanged her.  Then, while she was still alive, hanging from a rope, they cut open her womb.  The child spilled out onto the ground and they crushed the baby’s skull under the heel of a boot.

One wonders how much success Mary Turner might have had in her quest for Justice.  In many (most?) instances of Klan violence it was no secret who was hidden beneath the white sheets and under the white peaked hats.  Unfortunately, other than their costumes, the Klansmen all shared another very important thing in common: they were all Democrats.  And since all the members of the local constabulary were Democrats, as were the prosecutors, judges, and juries, successful prosecutions of Klan violence were a rarity.      

Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) responded to Trump’s tweet, saying, “Lynching is a reprehensible stain on this nation’s history, as is this President.  We’ll never erase the pain and trauma of lynching, and to invoke that torture to whitewash your own corruption is disgraceful.”  When Democrats decided during the mid-1950s that, since slavery was no longer a viable alternative in the U.S., they would have to purchase the loyalty of blacks with a multi-trillion dollar social welfare spending spree, is it not reasonable for us to ask Sen. Harris whether or not the welfare state is just the Democrats’ way of “whitewashing” their own corruption?    

Representative Bobby Rush (D-IL) said, “You think this impeachment is a LYNCHING?  What the hell is wrong with you?  Do you know how many people who look like me have been lynched, since the inception of this country, by people who look like you?  Delete this tweet.”  Rep. Rush thoughtlessly lumps all whites into a single group when he addresses Trump as “people who look like you.”  We should remind Representative Rush that the hundreds of thousands who fought and died in a great war to end slavery did not all look alike.  Some who looked like Donald Trump (my great-grandfather, Lt. Col. Johann Dietrich Hollrah of the Union Army, among them) were devout abolitionists; other white combatants felt just as strongly about maintaining the institution of slavery.  

The Australian website news.com came as close as anyone to defining, perhaps unwittingly, what the fury is all about.  They wrote, “Lynchings, or hangings, were historically mostly used by whites against black men in the South beginning in the late 19th century amid rising racial tensions in the US.  By comparing the impeachment process to a lynching, Mr. Trump is also likening Democrats to a lynch mob.”   So, what’s their point?  When one considers all of the above, concluding that the Democrat Party is, in fact, the party of Slavery, Secession, and Segregation, we leave it to everyone’s conscience to decide which party most resembles a “lynch mob.”

How many black Democrats, who regularly cast 90-95% of their votes for members of the party that murdered their great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers, are now among Donald Trump’s most vocal critics?  How many of them are even aware of their party’s racist history?  And how many black children learn the history of the slavery era in their Black History classes?  Given the predictable destruction of the black family unit that can be traced directly to the Democrats’ management of the welfare state, is it not treasonable to ask whether or not the welfare state has not been used by the Democrat Party as “an act of terror used to uphold white supremacy,” as Senator Cory Booker has suggested?

And finally, when one considers the evils of lynching, it is simply not possible to have such a discussion without recalling the ordeal of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas, at the hands of Senate Democrats.

Clarence Thomas was nominated as an Associate Justice by President George H.W. Bush.  But, if Thomas had known in advance the physical and emotional agony he would experience at the hands of Senate Democrats, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he would not have hesitated; he would have declined the president’s nomination.

On the final day of his Senate confirmation hearing, Friday, October 11, 1991, Justice Thomas delivered what was the most devastating rebuke that a committee of the United States Senate has ever endured.  He closed his remarks by saying, “This is a circus.  It is a national disgrace.  And from my standpoint as a black American, as far as I am concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that, unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you, you will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate, rather than hung from a tree.”  

Clarence Thomas must sit before his TV each night with a tear in his eye, saying a silent prayer for President Donald Trump.  What they did to Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh, and to Judge Robert Bork, is simply standard Democrat procedure.  It’s just the way they play the game.  No one knows that better than these three jurists.  Trump is right.  What they experienced, and what Trump is experiencing now, can only be described by two words:  it is a “public lynching.” 

Paul R. Hollrah is a retired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College.  He currently lives and writes among the hills and lakes of northeast Oklahoma’s Green Country.

Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment