The biggest companies in the world worked together to destroy President Trump and upstart free-speech platform Parler. You can love Trump, hate Trump, or be extremely conflicted about Trump, but you can't deny the fact that the richest, most powerful corporations in the world have claimed the right and power to decide who can speak and who can't. What's playing out is completely bizarre.

As Silicon Valley censorship radically escalated over the past several months -- banning pre-election reporting by The New York Post about the Biden family, denouncing and deleting multiple posts from the U.S. President and then terminating his access altogether, mass-removal of right-wing accounts -- so many people migrated to Parler that it was catapulted to the number one spot on the list of most-downloaded apps on the Apple Play Store, the sole and exclusive means which iPhone users have to download apps. "Overall, the app was the 10th most downloaded social media app in 2020 with 8.1 million new installs," reported TechCrunch.

It looked as if Parler had proven critics of Silicon Valley monopolistic power wrong. Their success showed that it was possible after all to create a new social media platform to compete with Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. And they did so by doing exactly what Silicon Valley defenders long insisted should be done: if you don't like the rules imposed by tech giants, go create your own platform with different rules.

But today, if you want to download, sign up for, or use Parler, you will be unable to do so. That is because three Silicon Valley monopolies -- Amazon, Google and Apple -- abruptly united to remove Parler from the internet, exactly at the moment when it became the most-downloaded app in the country.

If one were looking for evidence to demonstrate that these tech behemoths are, in fact, monopolies that engage in anti-competitive behavior in violation of antitrust laws, and will obliterate any attempt to compete with them in the marketplace, it would be difficult to imagine anything more compelling than how they just used their unconstrained power to utterly destroy a rising competitor.

Big Brother claims that Trump and Parler are inciting violence, but the truth is that the Capitol Hill riot was planned on Facebook and Twitter. (I condemn all political violence in America.)

The pretext for singling out Parler is that some people have posted threats there, which is a violation of Parler policy. There is no claim that the riot at the Capitol on January 6 was coordinated through Parler -- not even Apple, in its letter terminating services, made that claim. USA Today, citing other sources, gave examples of calls for violence prior to the Capitol Hill riot -- on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and a single video on Parler:
Violent rhetoric including threats against elected officials and police officers flooded all social media platforms including Facebook, Twitter and Google's YouTube, not just online forums popular with extremists.....

On Facebook, pages and private and public groups urged civil war if Democrats were not arrested for election interference, alleged police officers were assisting "Antifa" and claimed "Antifa" members were impersonating "patriots" at the Capitol. A video encouraged protesters to bring pepper spray, tear gas, batons, tasers and knives.

A Facebook page called Red-State Secession shared addresses of "enemies" including members of Congress. One post urged people to prepare "to use force to defend civilization." Facebook removed the page Wednesday.

Even the president of anti-conservative Media Matters points to Facebook as the main organizing site:

Facebook had much bigger role in creating conditions that led to as well as organizing for January 6 event. We tracked people using FB to organize attendees to bring guns to the Jan 6 event. FB did nothing.

So why aren't Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Reddit being deplatformed? Why are they picking on Parler? [...]

So the claim that Parler represents some unique risk to safety is a lie. It's a lie driven by politics, exploiting the justifiable national outrage at the Capitol Hill riot to purge political rivals through unprecedended collusion among the internet oligopolies, furthered by isolation tactics to cut Parler off from legal and other services.

To top it off, Twitter just had the balls to write this.

twitter uganda.jpg

The response to Twitter has been widespread mockery, as it should be. Will the people behind this behavior come to realize that they've cast themselves as the villains?

leia grip.jpg

As Princess Leia told Grand Moff Tarkin right before the destruction of Alderaan: "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." Tarkin didn't care about public sentiment because he believed he could force submission through fear. He destroyed Parler Alderaan as a warning to any other uppity planets that might object to Imperial domination.

darth obiwan.jpg

While we're making Star Wars references, remember that Obi-Wan Kenobi told Darth Vader: "You can't win, Darth. If you strike me down I will become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."

Well... Gab has already brought Trump back from the dead.

Gab CEO completely backed up President Trump's Twitter account before it was deleted and recreated him on Gab! What's even more impressive is he did this while traffic was up 700% and under attack from leftists. Gab is currently having servers upgraded to handle the large influx in traffic but we're told it should stabilize soon.

Will he be more powerful than we can possibly imagine? (I hope not.)

The Left doesn't realize that it's reifying -- acting out -- making real -- bringing into existence -- an instance of the Hero's Journey, and they've cast Trump as the Hero (e.g., Simba) and themselves as the Tyrannical King (e.g., Scar). Note: I'm not saying Trump's a Hero -- the Left is putting him into that role. I'm not saying the Left is the Tyrannical King -- they're taking that role on themselves. I can only speculate why the Left is doing this, but it looks like a foolish plan.

Forbes announces that they will automatically distrust any company that hires vocal Trump supporters. But this totally isn't "cancel culture", of which they disapprove.

Let it be known to the business world: Hire any of Trump's fellow fabulists above, and Forbes will assume that everything your company or firm talks about is a lie. We're going to scrutinize, double-check, investigate with the same skepticism we'd approach a Trump tweet. Want to ensure the world's biggest business media brand approaches you as a potential funnel of disinformation? Then hire away.

This isn't cancel culture, which is a societal blight.

Good thing the media is so widely trusted so we ignorant plebes know who to obey.

Joe Biden will become president on January 20th, but the cloud of uncertainty around the 2020 election will never be dispelled because the people who could do so didn't even try.

I'm not an election or legal expert, but here are some things I've come to believe over the past two months. These are normative beliefs about how things should be, not claims about how things are under the current system.

First: Election officials bear the burden of proof for election integrity. They're the ones in possession of all the material evidence, and they're the ones with the legal obligation to execute fair elections. It's not reasonable to expect a candidate or a member of the public to "just trust us" when it comes to election integrity, and it's not reasonable to expect a candidate or member of the public to bear the burden to prove that an election was executed badly. Election officials must be required to prove they did their jobs well, and not be given the assumption of fairness or competency. Election officials should have to "show their work" transparently after every election.

Second: State election systems seem to be mostly garbage. The rules are bad, and the execution of those rules is worse. Stopping the count on election night in five cities simultaneously looked super-suspicious. I don't know exactly what rules should be in place, but I know that other countries require voters to show identification and greatly restrict mail-in or absentee voting. Some countries count ballots in place rather than transporting them to a central counting facility. Our states need to fix their election systems so that the public and election losers have full confidence in the results. I'm not sure how to fix the incompetent idiots who run our elections, especially if the courts won't grant anyone standing to challenge them -- perhaps standing could be created by law?

Third: Election audits and recounts need to be performed by people other than those accused of fraud. Obviously. No person or organization involved in the contested count should have any role in an audit or recount.

Fourth: There hasn't been a real investigation if there hasn't been discovery and hostile witnesses cross-examined under oath. Either our political system or our legal system needs to provide a way to credibly challenge election results in a timely manner. It doesn't count to simply dismiss cases on procedural grounds without forcing the production of evidence and testimony. It doesn't count for state legislators to issue statements but for the legislatures themselves to be out of session and unable to perform their Constitutional duties. All the court cases and hearings that happened in 2020 may have been handled in a legal and proper manner according to the existing rules, but those rules need to change in order to give people confidence in our elections.

Fifth: Political violence should be condemned by all Americans. Republicans condemned the violent riots that played out across the country all summer, and Republicans should also condemn rioting by Trump supporters in the Capitol. Democrats should have condemned the violent riots over the summer but mostly didn't, hiding behind euphemisms like "mostly peaceful". I'm glad we're all in agreement now that rioting is unacceptable. Peaceful protest is acceptable and American, but violence is wrong (and ineffective).

Sixth: This wasn't America's first badly run election -- I bet this kind of shoddy work has been going on for decades. It's embarrassing to America and needs to be fixed immediately.

It should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway: riots and political violence are unacceptable in America. All Christians should pray for peace and safety. All Americans should condemn the use of violence for political purposes. I condemn all such violence.

Peaceful protest is fair and legitimate and American. Riots and violence are bad.

Paul wrote the book of Philippians while awaiting execution in a Roman prison. Instead of lamenting the very real corruption and evil of the government that was persecuting him, he encouraged his readers to be fearless and confident because Christ's glory and power and purpose far exceed earthly political concerns, as serious as they are. From Philippians 1:

27 Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel, 28 and not frightened in anything by your opponents. This is a clear sign to them of their destruction, but of your salvation, and that from God. 29 For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, 30 engaged in the same conflict that you saw I had and now hear that I still have.

Christians do not need to accept corruption quietly, but we need to be fearless and keep our eyes on things above.

Among many other benefits, Ross Douthat writes that raising a family helps you become more holy.

For the average sinner, though, for me and maybe for you, life with children establishes at least some of the preconditions for growing in holiness, even if there's always the risk of being redirected into tribal narcissism. If I didn't have kids there's a 5 percent chance that I'd be doing something more radical in pursuit of sainthood; there's a 95 percent chance that I'd just be a more persistent sinner, a more selfish person, because no squalling infant or tearful nine-year-old is there to force me to live for her and not myself.

I've definitely found this to be true. I'm a much better person than I used to be, significantly because of my family. (Not that I'm all that great, mind you.)

The Word of God falling from the lips of the apostle or minister enters into the heart of the hearer. The Holy Ghost impregnates the Word so that it brings forth the fruit of faith. In this manner every Christian pastor is a spiritual father who forms Christ in the hearts of his hearers.


An eternity ago, right after the election, Brian Riedl and Sean Trende made an important observation: the election polls were so far off that all public polling must be garbage.

Politicians rely on public polling for many of their decisions (right or wrong), and polls influence judges and bureaucrats also. If polls can't remotely predict the highest-profile election ever, why should we have any confidence that anything they say is accurate? This goes way beyond politics.


Scott Adams points out that it's absurd that America can't audit our elections because the companies that made the machines claim that letting us review the software would endanger their intellectual property. What kind of proprietary algorithms are required to perform addition, anyway? Who in government agreed to an arrangement like this?

Note: Most claims of election fraud are probably false or mistaken, but "trust us" isn't an acceptable security policy. Our elections must be above reproach.

If we can't audit our nation's vote-counting software because the company claims it is proprietary information, I'm totally cool with that. But obviously the election has to be thrown out in whole for that very reason. I see no room for compromise on this point.

Who agreed to a no-audit deal with an election software company? Name ANYTHING you have ever heard that is dumber. Literally anything. You can't.

Will the Supreme Court give a free pass to an election that was non-transparent BY DESIGN? Accidental would be one thing, but non-auditable voting machines are not an accident.

Will the House?

Anyway, auditing an election shouldn't require source code -- there should be secure logs. But apparently there aren't secure, trusted logs.


I've seen a lot of evidence of voting irregularities in the 2020 Presidential election -- hundreds of affidavits and dozens of statistical analyses. I don't know what the truth is. But despite all that, the most suspicious thing about the election is that both courts and the media want to pretend that there is no evidence. Courts keep throwing out cases on "technicalities", finding reasons to avoid looking at the submitted evidence. The media just covers its eyes and ears and writes about Biden's dogs and cats. This is super sus.

If there was any wrongdoing, the proof is in the hands of the wrongdoers. A court needs to order testimony under oath for the accused wrongdoers, and needs to seize any evidence in their possession. Only then can we examine the evidence and get past the allegations and rumors. It isn't good enough to stall and prevaricate. If the election was fair, then open the books. Tell us under oath, subject to cross-examination.

It's not enough to say, "Trump's just making everything up! He's blowing smoke!"

I personally hope that the election was completely fair, because the alternative is much worse.


The burden of proof is on Trump's campaign to show evidence of election fraud that will convince courts or state legislatures, and so far they haven't done it.

However, the public is under no obligation to work under the same standards of evidence as a court, and the public has different incentives than legislators. The public sees the smoke of electoral fraud and isn't convinced otherwise by establishment cries of "debunked" or "no evidence", no matter how loudly or frequently proclaimed. If Trump's legal and political challenges fail, the burden of proof will be on the establishment to convince the rest of America that Trump's protests are faulty, and so far they aren't even trying to make that case.

Their rough consensus is that GOP voters who still support the president are either treasonous or stupid, reinforced constantly by a brittle insistence that there was "no fraud" in the presidential election. A totemic front-page declaration by the New York Times, "ELECTION OFFICIALS NATIONWIDE FIND NO FRAUD," has been repeated everywhere, mantra-like. Any claims of voter fraud or ballot-counting irregularities, whether from President Trump or the tens of thousands who marched over the weekend, are "baseless," "unfounded," and have "no evidence" behind them.

There's a palpable nervousness about the media's insistence that the election was as pure as the driven snow. Maybe they seem so nervous because they know what everyone in America knows: there was nothing pure or secure or even ordinary about the election.

How could there be? Under the pretext of ensuring "voter access" during the pandemic, Democrats, leftist nonprofits, and activist judges across the country unleashed a flood of changes to election rules in the months leading up to the vote, including an unprecedented expansion of mail-in voting, an inherently fraught method of casting ballots that removes almost all oversight from the process.

No matter. States pushed ahead, mailing ballots to outdated voter rolls en masse and recklessly loosening oversight for how those ballots could be collected and counted. Chain-of-custody for absentee ballots went out the window, along with whatever meager safeguards usually apply to absentee voting. Ballot harvesting, long a tradition of corrupt Democratic political machines in places like Detroit and Philadelphia, was introduced in some places for the first time. Take together, all these pandemic-inspired reforms presented an ideal opportunity for Democrats to flood absentee ballot-counting centers in major cities and run up the vote-count long after the polls closed on Election Day.

Despite judges dismissing the significance of hundreds of sworn affidavits, this testimony is pretty compelling to most people who are allowed to hear about it.

No wonder scores of Republican poll challengers in Michigan filed sworn affidavits claiming tens of thousands of fraudulent ballots were counted for Biden in Detroit. No wonder that in Philadelphia, poll watchers reported how they were forcibly kept from observing the counting of absentee ballots, as required under state law.

Not all the reports of ballot-counting skullduggery amount to old-fashioned voter fraud, but as my colleague Margot Cleveland has noted, they're just as important because they undermine the integrity of an election just as much as, say, thousands of dead people voting.

Trump didn't cause the division and mistrust in America -- he is a symptom of a larger social trend that won't be extinguished when he leaves office. To paraphrase Princess Leia: The more the establishment tightens its grip, the more the public will slip through its fingers.


Whether or not Trump's various legal challenges are successful one thing is clear: America's election system is garbage. Americans deserve a secure, fair, and transparent election system. I don't personally know enough to propose solutions, but South Carolina Republicans seem to be on the right track.

U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson discussed plans to introduce a bill that would require voter identification and establish voter fraud hotlines and nationwide cross referencing of voter rolls during a news conference Tuesday at the state Capitol. Wilson was joined by Congressmen Ralph Norman and Jeff Duncan and U.S. Rep.-elect Nancy Mace. ...

"There was a large portion of voters across the country who were worried about their votes being counted, and there was a large segment of voters across the country who were worried about illegal votes being counted," Mace said.

Wilson said ballots must be received by the hour polls close, and ballots received after polls close should not be counted. Additionally, observers should be allowed to watch ballot counting within 2 feet so they can read voter signatures, and there should be laws to prohibit covering of windows to conceal vote counting.

Once counting begins, Wilson said, it must continue until all votes are counted, with no intervals of delay. ...

After the election, ballots should be cross referenced on all forms of voting to reveal those who have voted multiple times and identify co-conspirators who helped facilitate multistate voting. Anyone guilty of voter fraud should be prosecuted, Wilson said.

I'll add: paper ballots only.


Alexander Macris explains how a federal court might consider Trump's election fraud claims based on Donohue v. Board of Elections of State of New York, 435 F. Supp. 957 (E.D.N.Y. 1976). Donohue was a federal district court case in New York that isn't binding on any other district court, much less the Supreme Court, but the decision outlines some pretty logical considerations. In short:

The Donohue court has thus laid out the legal test that the plaintiff must meet. He must plead and prove

1. specific acts of misconduct,

2. involving 'willful or knowing' ballot fraud,

3. by state officials or private persons acting jointly with state officials,

4. that changed the outcome of the election.

This is a heavy burden. The Trump campaign will have to work hard to meet this test. But it is a matter of fact and evidence.

The district court ruled against the plaintiff (President Ford) in Donohue for a few reasons:

First, they didn't show that the irregularities were willful acts of misconduct by state officials. Second, the particular 'irregularity' they showed didn't really prove fraud; there were other inferences that were plausible. Third, they didn't establish that the irregularities actually were irregularities in Carter's favor! They showed a pattern of irregular votes, but didn't show that those irregular votes were for Jimmy. Fourth, they didn't offer any independent evidence to buttress their statistical analysis - no witnesses came forward to allege state officials had acted wrongly, for instance. Finally, they didn't show enough irregularity to change the outcome. So the Ford campaign lost its case on the facts, not on the law. They had a case, but didn't have the evidence.

Trump's lawyers are certainly familiar with the case law, so watch for them to build their case(s) around these four points.


I personally hope that there wasn't widespread election fraud, but if there was then we need to know about it and fix our election system so that it never happens again.

I've been avidly following the numerous statistical analyses that data experts have been performing and posting online. Statistical analysis alone isn't proof, but it's sufficient evidence to justify an investigation. Here are a few sources worth reading -- but some links may eventually be taken down by our tech overlords.

There are many other examples, but those three are representative. All together, these analysis provide a lot more public evidence to justify an investigation than we had in Florida in 2000 or that we had for "Russian interference" in 2016. The stats don't tell us exactly who may have done what, but they give us a good idea of where and when to look. Maybe it's all just statistical noise that doesn't mean anything, but it's worth finding out.

Anyway, the stats adventure has been fun! But even if you don't care about or believe in these statistics, now we've got a sworn affidavit from City of Detroit employee named Jessy Jacob who says that she witnessed and participated in election fraud at the direction of her superiors. I have a feeling we'll see more affidavits like this today.

Matthew Cochran is correct that "America Won't Trust Elections Until The Voter Fraud Is Investigated".

In 2020, the body of evidence eclipses that of 2000. Today, the confusion arises from half a dozen states rather than one. The reported incidents indicate outright fraud more than they do simple incompetence, especially since they all just happen to benefit the same candidate. Shouldn't this evidence give us even more reason to investigate the matter than we had two decades ago?

And if your memory doesn't work that far back, you should at least remember 2016. A few Russian dollars spent on Facebook during the election and a highly questionable dossier were all it took to trigger FBI and congressional investigations into President Trump for years. There is far more evidence to justify an investigation into voter fraud in 2020.

So let's see how things play out. We've got plenty of time to investigate, and smart and dedicated people from across the political spectrum who are dedicated to the truth. Right?


I don't have anything intelligent to add to the wildfire election discussion.

Is it super sus that the media "calls" states for Biden instantly, but delays calling anything for Trump until the call won't give him even a temporary electoral vote lead? Yes.

Is it super sus that states where Trump is leading decide to stop counting for a while, and promise to get back to us in a few days? Uh, yes.

Will it be super sus if Biden wins by a handful of votes in the states that stopped counting overnight? Oh fo sho.

Will it be super sus if this election gets decided 5-4 or 6-3 by the Supreme Court? Yep.

These electoral shenanigans are embarrassing.

Pollsters: LOL you are terrible.

Media: LOL you are terrible.

Divided government? If Biden wins but Republicans hold the Senate, that's pretty decent.

Best case scenario: Supreme Court unanimously picks a winner.


Democrat Senator Ron Wyden is right.

"Secret encryption back doors are a threat to national security and the safety of our families - it's only a matter of time before foreign hackers or criminals exploit them in ways that undermine American national security," Wyden told Reuters. "The government shouldn't have any role in planting secret back doors in encryption technology used by Americans."

The agency declined to say how it had updated its policies on obtaining special access to commercial products. NSA officials said the agency has been rebuilding trust with the private sector through such measures as offering warnings about software flaws.

Americans are a free people, and our government must protect our natural right to "keep and bear" strong encryption.


Democrat Senator Ron Wyden is right.

"Secret encryption back doors are a threat to national security and the safety of our families - it's only a matter of time before foreign hackers or criminals exploit them in ways that undermine American national security," Wyden told Reuters. "The government shouldn't have any role in planting secret back doors in encryption technology used by Americans."

The agency declined to say how it had updated its policies on obtaining special access to commercial products. NSA officials said the agency has been rebuilding trust with the private sector through such measures as offering warnings about software flaws.

Americans are a free people, and our government must protect our natural right to "keep and bear" strong encryption.


The Conservative Treehouse writes that Trump supporters are organically routing around social controls and posts several insane videos of Trump parades around the country. I say "Trump parades", but Trump isn't at any of these events, and his campaign didn't organize them. Check this one out from yesterday in Beverly Hills, California. The crowd goes on and on and on. This is nuts.

There are dozens, even hundreds of videos like this. It's unbelievable. I know the polls show Trump losing handily to Biden, but these events make it hard to believe those numbers.

There's nothing equivalent for Biden. I wrote last week that everything points to a Trump victory except the polls, and that's more true now than ever. Crowds like this don't lose elections.

Even if Biden legitimately wins the election, the movement that Trump mid-wifed isn't going away.

Do not go gentle into that good night.

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.


Asymmetric warfare. Facebook and Twitter are The Man now, but they can't stop the signal. The Man can't censor you if he can't even follow your links.

Social Media Hider is a way to publish links to external web content to censorious social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook that they won't censor because their censorbots and employees won't see the actual link but just a cover image.

SMH looks like a classic URL shortener, and indeed it is a URL shortener, but it has an extra feature that decides whether to redirect to the target URL depending on what the IP address making the request is. If the source IP is in a subnet that the SMH operator doesn't trust then instead of returning the actual target URL it returns a decoy image or link.

So when The Man (or his AI crony) clicks your link he gets sent somewhere innocuous, but when your friend clicks your link he gets sent to your intended destination. Brilliant.

Social Media Hider is a bit technical to use right now, but just wait a week and there will be browser plug-in that handles everything automatically.


Last month I wrote that pollsters must have learned something from their humiliating failure in 2016. At this moment, it seems like the only indication of a win for Biden is media polling -- which shows a landslide in his favor. Can an incumbent president really lose when 56% of people say they're better off than four years ago?

It is an odd election season. Pretty much everyone thinks the Democrats are on their way to a crushing victory, yet it is hard to see why. A whopping 56% of Americans say they are better off now than they were four years ago, and President Trump draws large, enthusiastic crowds wherever he goes. Meanwhile, Joe Biden is a pale shell of his formerly buffoonish self. When Joe is able to get out of bed, his campaign schedules intimate invitation-only events. Supposedly this is because of COVID, but everyone knows it is really because he doesn't want to be embarrassed by his inability to draw a crowd. Probably no one outside of Biden's immediate family particularly wants him to be president.

So what is going on?

Kevin McCullough writes that the polls are wrong because Trump voters are reluctant to admit who they're voting for.

Now the "smart people" will tell you [that a Trump win is] not possible and that he lags Joe Biden in the polls by margins too big to overcome. If you only look at the selective polls listed in the Real Clear Politics average one might come to that conclusion (Just like they did in 2016).

One thing they won't tell you though is that the hesitancy to tell pollsters what they think is a real phenomenon. A little more than a month ago Bloomberg published a survey that demonstrated Republicans and Independents are more than twice as likely as Democrats to not reveal to pollsters their true thoughts.

Maybe. I think it's more likely that any significant errors stem from inaccurate demographic mixes -- that they're underweighting Trump's support among Blacks, Hispanics, gays, and others.

Mollie Hemingway points out that Trump is polling better now than he did in 2016.

So you see that Biden is averaging a 7-point lead in Pennsylvania, but Clinton was averaging a nearly identical lead there four years ago -- before Trump won it narrowly on election day. Likewise, Biden's Florida lead is very similar to Clinton's lead four years ago. Trump won Florida.

Biden is not performing as well in Wisconsin as Clinton was four years ago. Trump won that state. Biden is doing less well in Michigan, according to the polls, than Clinton did four years ago. Trump won Michigan. Biden's doing a bit better in North Carolina than Clinton did but Trump won that state by a 4-point margin.

There are a lot of people who don't put much confidence in polling, but this table shows that even according to the polls themselves, Trump's performance at this point in the election process is on track with where he was in 2016.

I'm not good at predicting elections, but I will: Trump will win re-election.

Supporters

Email blogmasterofnoneATgmailDOTcom for text link and key word rates.

Monthly Archives