I hate to say it, but both of these sound kind silly to me. Click here and here to go see what the fuss is about. I do not believe either of the stories really.
Sounds to be like two under-important attention whores are trying to cash in. 17 more days of this, ya’ll 17 more days…..
I am going to tell you all something. I do believe I have seen it all now. I have been blogging since 2006. I have been around this political stuff for 6 long years, and this is the first time, that I have ever seen a progressive talking-head accuse the American people of being racists for not supporting a President. This, as they say, is absolutely unreal.
Liberal pundit Chris Matthews explained Mitt Romney’s support among conservatives, despite the candidate shifting toward the center on a number of issues, as a product of “racial hatred.”
Speaking after Thursday night’s debate on MSNBC, Matthews accused Romney of “pulling back” from many of the foreign policy positions he had taken during the primary. When host Rachel Maddow wondered why Romney might be “reversing himself” from his stated positions during the primary and whether that could dampen his support among his conservative base, Matthews dismissed such a possibility.
“I think they hate Obama. They want him out of the White House more than they want to destroy al Qaeda. Their No. 1 enemy in the world right now, on the right, is their hatred, hatred for Obama. And we can go into that about the white working class in the South and looking at these numbers we’re getting the last couple days about racial hatred in many cases … this isn’t about being a better president, they want to get rid of this president,” he said.
Matthews also dismissed Romney’s position on potentially taking military action against Iran if the nation acquires nuclear weapon capabilities.
“Any jackass can talk about bombing Iran, but they never talk about the consequences,” he said.
First of all, I do believe that Mitt Romney said that he would only use the Military as a last resort. Which is a very large departure from the Bush Administration’s insistence that we just had to go into Iraq to stop the WMD’s. As for calling Mitt Romney a “jackass,” any jackass can support a Presidential candidate because of his skin color too, as it seems that Chris Matthews did. Furthermore, any jackass can run for President as a community organizer; but if you are black, you have better chance of winning! So there! Mr. Matthews, you make a mockery of the Progressives and the Democratic Party! You should be kicked off the air for good.
I’m certain that this is what makes Matthews feel more comfortable about an election that clearly is being lost by Barack Obama. It’s not about median household income dropping faster during the Obamanomics recover (4.8%) than during the recession (2.5%). It’s not about having the lowest civilian population participation rate in the last 31 years (63.5%, down from 65.7% at the beginning of the recovery). It’s not about 1.3% GDP growth. It’s not about skyrocketing deficits and budget proposals so ridiculous that no one in Obama’s own party would vote for them. No, Matthews can’t bring himself to it’s about America rejecting the President who delivered this economic performance not because of his failures, but because of the color of his skin — even though the same electorate made him President despite a lack of experience over a long-known and long-serving politician four years ago.
That says nothing about America. It says everything about Chris Matthews.
Agreed. My friends, as I have written on this blog, and on my old one many times. I am a former Democratic Party voter, I left that part for this very reason right here. Because I knew that this sort of stupidity would be coming down the pike, once President Obama was elected. It is a sad state of affairs for the Democratic Party, their leader has failed horribly and now, they are trying to hold on to the “dream,” if you want to call it that and they will be dragged into the dustbin of history, kicking and screaming all the way.
Again, it is sad to see; but I knew it was coming, long ago.
Today the U.S. Navy must prepare for two major wars–one against Iran in the Persian Gulf, the other against China in the Western Pacific–while also combating piracy off the coast of Africa, dealing with unexpected wars such as the one in Libya last year, supporting ground operations in Afghanistan and other theaters, combating drug runners in the Caribbean, and showing the flag in the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean, and other seas. The operational tempo dictated by these requirements is terrific, as I have seen for myself in the last few years in visits to the 5th Fleet in the Persian Gulf and the 7th Fleet in Japan.
The ships we have are, when not retrofitting in port, almost constantly at sea and they are struggling to keep up with threats ranging from Chinese “aircraft-killer” ballistic missiles and submarines to Iranian mines and cruise missiles–not to mention the ever-present threat of cyberattack and terrorism (of the kind which crippled the USS Cole). Yes, the capabilities of each naval ship are greater today–but so are its range of potential missions and so are the capabilities of our potential foes. China is expanding its maritime capabilities at a rapid clip; the U.S. Navy is struggling to keep up and the balance of power in the Western Pacific is shifting against us.
That is in large part why the bipartisan Hadley-Perry Commission concluded in 2010 that the Navy should have 346 ships. Yet today it has only 282 ships–and falling. As former Navy Secretary (and Romney adviser) John Lehman noted in April: “The latest budget the administration has advanced proposes buying just 41 ships over five years. It is anything but certain that the administration’s budgets will sustain even that rate of only eight ships per year, but even if they do, the United States is headed for a Navy of 240-250 ships at best.”
That is a looming strategic disaster–and one that no amount of quips about horses and bayonets can wish away. If we don’t build more ships, our global maritime dominance–the basic underpinning of the world’s strategic and economic stability–is in real danger of slipping away.
The only thing that I have a quibble with, is that he actually forgot Russia. If Max thinks that Russia is not a threat to our National Security; he is nuts. As long as Putin has his hands in the Government in Russia, the United States should be very worried. Putin is a holdover from the communist era in Russia and he would just love to take Russia back to the old Communist era. So, they are a threat, as a matter of face they were just testing missiles yesterday.
Reagan always said, when it came to Russia; “Trust, But Verify” and Reagan always did try and independently verify anything that the Russians were saying or doing. All of the Presidents since then have not been so careful, as far as I know. As much as I know that it is going to make me sound like a conspiracy theory kook; I really do not believe that Russia is to be trusted at all. Communism never quite dies, it just takes on new shapes and names. Sort of like what we have here in America, as it is called —- imperfect Marxism.
However, over in Russia, I believe it to be a bit more sinister and complex; those who would want to bring back old soviet-style communism, have plenty of funding, as many in the Russian Business and underworld, would stand to make a good deal of money, if the old Communist Party came back to power. So, that is a threat and I believe our Military should always be on the ready, for when the Russians decided to show muscle.
I hate to be the one to say it; but, anyone who thinks that there are not threats to the security of this Country and others in the region, is at the very least highly uninformed. This is why I always had a quibble with Ron Paul’s foreign policy. As Paul’s foreign policy was just simply not rooted in the realities of the time. Ron Paul seems to be stuck in a utopian era, before World War 2. Truth is, times have changed, and we must be responsible as a Nation to protect this great Republic of ours, from those who wish to cause it harm. This is not a “Neo-Con” foreign policy, that is a reality based, Pro-American foreign policy.
Sadly, Ron Paul refuses to accept that argument and that is why I always had trouble taking him seriously, except maybe on matters of fiscal policy. Even then, some of his ideas are just not rooted in reality. Nice ideas, but a bit out of step for the realities of today.
I don’t give two flips what your politics is; this right here, is not cool at all.
The Victim – Sean Kidzie
Early Friday morning, thugs presumably supporting President Obama beat up the son of Wisconsin State Senator Neal Kedzie outside of his apartment in Whitewater. Kedzie caught the two men removing a Romney sign outside of his apartment around two o’clock in the morning. After telling them to put the signs back, one of the thugs attacked Kedzie and then put him in a choke hold and continued to beat his head.Mark Belling spoke to the Senator’s son Sean on the radio earlier today. Sean Kedzie told Belling he was rushed to the hospital by ambulance with possible skull and eye socket fractures.
**Update: I spoke to Sean Kedzie this evening; he told me is doing well under the circumstances. He said, unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be much of an effort to notify people that this incident has occurred, and the two men that beat him up have still not been caught.
Kedzie also said, “the next night another sign was removed from his yard supporting Tommy Thompson for Senate and the night after that an ‘I stand with Walker’ sign was stolen.”
Kedzie told me he is concerned if the thugs that beat him are not caught, other people may be hurt for simply having signs in their yard supporting particular candidates. When I asked if there is anything that people can do to help, he replied, “just stand up for their rights and what they believe in.”
This stuff is not even funny at all. This is the stuff that used to happen to the unions back in the day, at the Battle of the overpass. It is too bad that Democrats have forgotten about all of that. I remember it, because my Dad is a retired GM worker and I know the history of the labor movement. Here is hoping that they catch these punks and put them away for a good long while.
Unlike this woman’s article, this is a very serious article.
Tucker Carlson’s “The Daily Caller” which is rapidly becoming the next “WorldNetDaily” of Conservative media; allows one of its writers, under the guise of so-called humor, to take a rather cheap swipe at Mitt Romney’s five sons.
Writing in her piece about the Romney sons, who are all very happily married; she writes the following:
Choosing between these five handsome men was tough but the results are in. Although all the Romney boys are married, don’t lose hope: With the exception of one, all of the sons are Mormon so you could potentially be wife number two, three or four depending on whether or not you are into that sort of thing.
Now folks, I have a sense of humor and I have been known to be funny on this blog from time to time. However, this is not funny, it is not even close. It is nothing more than an underhanded slam of the Romney’s and their family. You see, I know the Tucker Carlson is a Mormon himself; but you see, Tucker Carlson is also a libertarian conservative, of the Barry Goldwater stripe, and Carlson also happens to not to be too fond of Romney. Carlson’s gripe is that he believes that Romney is a statist and not nearly conservative enough for his taste. Therefore, because of this and because of the fact that Carlson himself is Mormon, he allows this stuff to be published on that internet rag that he owns.
Well, I happen to be a strong supporter of Mitt Romney for President of the United States of America. Because unlike the likes of Tucker Carlson; I realize that this Country needs a true leader, someone who knows how to run a business. Unlike that community organizer that we have in the White House now; Mitt Romney knows what it takes to be a leader, and will make the tough decisions to get this Country back on track. Furthermore, unlike Tucker Carlson; I happen to know that the Libertarian Party will never have a chance in hell of ever picking a President that will ever be elected. This is because Americans simply reject ideological extremism. The Libertarian Party’s platform is extremist and on foreign policy is totally disconnected from reality. Not to mention that the Libertarian Party’s policy on immigration is totally abhorrent and quite frankly, Anti-American in nature. This is why I dropped my support of Gary Johnson.
I believe that Tucker Carlson owes the Romney family, and his supporters a huge apology or risk his online publication becoming the “Infowars” of the internet in short order. Tucker Carlson’s Mormonism does not justify this sort of behavior by his writers. Furthermore, I find it very humorous, that Tucker Carlson would have a woman doing his bidding and insulting the Romney sons, instead of doing it himself. I guess it is true what Don Imus famously said about Tucker Carlson and his bow ties.
Update: Blogs4Mitt links in, Thanks Rusty! I believe this is an important issue. Like Patti said in the comments; if the left had made such a comment, we would be all over it. But because Tucker is supposedly on the right; nothing gets said, it is not fair to Romney. I know not everyone likes him, but this was just a cheap shot, period. This is why I am raising the flag on this one and calling “FOUL!” I mean, having concerns about Romney’s Statism is one thing; but making a comment like that, it is just uncalled for. It would be like calling President the N-Word, to me. It is the same thing. It is bigotry and it needs to stop — on all sides.
I realize this posting might just harm my so-called “Conservative credentials,” if I actually had any to begin with; but personally, I really do not care, to be quite honest. Glenn Greenwald is a liberal, Democrat and has written very extensively on the misdeeds and unconstitutional acts of the United States Government. One of the of the good things about Glenn Greenwald is that he is absolutely consistent in his stance against some of the unconstitutional acts of this Government under the banner of the “War on Terrorism.” When I was still a part of the “cheering squad” for the left and Bush was still much in control; Greenwald was a daily reader for me.
One thing you should know about Mr. Greenwald is that the same criticisms that Glenn has against the Obama Administration is the SAME ones that he had against the Bush Administration. This is why I do truly like what he is doing; politics be damned, we must hold this Government’s feet to the fire at all times. Otherwise, they will trample over us, like we do not exist. This is what Glenn Greenwald does, and this is why I am adding him to my “Honest Liberals” blogroll on this site. While I disagree with him on politics; I agree with what he is doing, which is keeping them honest.
Anyone who observes politics closely has a very low bar of expectations. It’s almost inevitable to become cynical – even jaded – about just how inept and inane top Washington officials are. Still, even processing this through those lowly standards, I just find this staggering. Staggering and repellent. This is an elected official in Congress, the body that the Constitution designed to impose checks on the president’s abuses of power, and she does not have the foggiest idea what is happening in the White House, and obviously does not care in the slightest, because the person doing it is part of the party she leads.
One expects corrupt partisan loyalty from people like Wasserman Schultz, eager to excuse anything and everything a Democratic president does. That’s a total abdication of her duty as a member of Congress, but that’s par for the course. But one does not expect this level of ignorance, the ability to stay entirely unaware of one of the most extremist powers a president has claimed in US history, trumpeted on the front-page of the New York Times and virtually everywhere else.
Amen. While I believe the war on terrorism is an important battle; I do not believe the best way to fight it, is by dancing around the constitution to do so. This is why I respect Mr. Greenwald, because he believes that as well. Good show Mr. Greenfield; keep it up!
Update: I realized after I hit publish, that Greenwald is gay. So much for me being a “right-wing gay hater” eh? The truth is, what Glenn does in his private life, is his own damned business. Do I support the lifestyle? No. But that does not mean I cannot respect a man, who happen to be gay, for supporting our constitution — because now, that is what is important. Social Conservatism is great, and it is what I am; but it is not what I want my Country to be modeled after. Because it is the Christian version of Sharia Law and I do not want that in this Country ever. Sharia Law or a Christian Theocracy.
Again Good Job, Glenn — keep it up! From a fan on the “so-called” right.
WASHINGTON — Victims of the Fort Hood shooting are rallying in a grassroots effort to get the rampage classified as an act of terrorism.
A coalition of 160 victims and family members released a video Thursday detailing what happened at the Texas military base on Nov. 5, 2009, and why they believe it was a terror attack.
In “The Truth About Fort Hood,” victims give testimonials about their experience and express their frustration at the government calling the incident “workplace violence.”
They point out that the accused shooter, Maj. Nidal Hasan, consulted by email with top al-Qaida leader Anwar al-Awlaki about whether an attack against American soldiers was justified to “protect our brothers.” Until his death in an airstrike in 2011, Yemen-based Awlaki was considered one of the United States’ top enemies.
The shooting for Hasan “was his jihad,” Staff Sgt. Alonzo Lunsford, who was shot five times that day, said in the video.
Another victim, Shawn Manning, said that the soldiers at the readiness center “were killed and wounded by a domestic enemy, someone who was there that day to kill soldiers to prevent them from deploying. If that’s not an act of war or an act of terrorism, I don’t know what is.”
“We’re working pretty hard for our guys right now to get them the recognition and compensation they deserve,” said Kathy Stalnaker, whose husband has severe post-traumatic stress disorder from the incident. “We want to keep it in front of the public.”
This above, if anything else — is why as a people must vote different on November 4, 2012. These brave people have put their damned asses on the line for us, to protect this Republic of ours and this is the thanks that they get from this Marxist President? This is an utter outrage and if there was any sort of justice in this Country, this President would be asked to resign his position and if he did not, impeachment proceedings would be started against him.
Now, I am not saying that our President is a Muslim, like some of the right argue. However, I will say this; at the very least he is empathic to the Islamic cause and does empathic with those who use violence to react to the United States invading their lands. I am not saying he agrees with their actions; but what I am saying is that the President feels that because we did invade their lands, that somehow their actions are justified —- or at the very LEAST the President empathizes with this position.
This is a very dangerous place for a President to be in. Even if we did invade their lands; the invasion of Afghanistan was totally justified, considering that Al-Qaeda hit our homeland on September 11, 2001. Whether our occupation of their lands was the cause, or whether they hit us, because of a Christian and Capitalistic society; the fact is, they attacked us first and we replied back with Military force.
I will say this; this attack here is one of the reasons why I believe that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld and the rest of them made a serious miscalculation about the war on terror. I do not think that the former President, Vice President and his staff realize just what they were uncorking, when they decided to fight the war on terror and just how far reaching it would be and what sort of blowback that they would encounter.
Furthermore, I do not believe that the former President calculated on people, who happened to be Muslim, in his own Military turning on their own Country for the sake of Jihad either. However, now, none of that matters; Bush and Cheney are gone and now we have a President, who will not even call terrorism for what it truly is. I say this as someone who rejects Wilsonian foreign policy, as someone who is not too keen on the idea of a continual war in he middle east for the sake on a so-called ally. I also say this, as unrepentant realist, who see things for what they really are and what they have become over the last three and a half years. Bush created this so-called “Arab Spring” mess and now we are into it deeply.
I also happen to believe that Bush and Co. made another fatal mistake of saying that the war that following 9/11 was not a religious war. It is, in fact, a religious war. It is war between civilized religions of peace; such as Christianity and Judaism and a savage, backward religion, which is quite fascist and intolerant towards those who dare criticize its so-called “prophet.” For those who would say that Christians do the same thing; I simply say to you, the last time I checked, I do not see Christians threatening to blowup buildings or anything for the sort —- for the mere offensive remarks about Jesus Christ or Jews blowing themselves up over insults to the Torah either. For those who point to Timothy McVeigh: He was not a Christian and he was not angry about insults to his religion either. He was a lone wolf crackpot who was angry at the Government. Big Difference! McVeigh might have also been suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome as well, as he was a first gulf war Veteran.
I said all that up there to say this right here: This is why we have to vote different come November 4, 2012. Because we need a steely-eyed leader, who will look at this situation that we are in and make some serious decisions. Not decisions based on political correctness, not based upon popularity polls or any other of that silly stuff. But decisions made for the good of this Country and the future of this Republic of ours. Admittedly, some of those decisions will most likely will make me want to hide under the bed, see I am not that big on war. But, I will feel much better knowing that Mitt Romney, who I am voting for and praying does win — will be that person in charge.
I pray that the Lord God of the Heavens is merciful to this Nation once again and allows a man to be elected — who believes, what I and many of the people who read this blog —- believe. That America and this Republic are worthy of defending, against enemies; foreign and domestic. Who also sees what previous President’s have done, and what needs to be done, to finish the job —- with honor — once and for all.
I really dislike having to point out and criticize the blatant stupidity on our side of the political fence. But, there are times than even I cannot ignore the stupidity.
Mark Skousen who is the producer of “Freedom Fest” writing over at Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller writes, “Why I’m giving my Social Security checks away — and why you should too.” In it, Mr. Skousen yowls on about his gripes and complaints about social security and how it is a horrible scam and such. Now, to be fair; I do sort of agree with his assessment of Social Security and how it will be most likely be bankrupt, by the time I am old enough to collect it, if I am even able ever able to collect it.
However, that is where Mr. Skousen goes off of the rails and really wanders off into whacky-land, at least in this writers opinion. First of all, Mr. Skousen publicly gloats about how well off he is financially:
I have always tried to live up to the words of Benjamin Franklin, who taught us the virtues of industry, thrift, and prudence in his booklet “The Way to Wealth.” By following Franklin’s trinity of virtues, I’ve been able to build up a sizable net worth and multiple sources of retirement income (company pension plan, IRAs), so that I don’t really need Social Security to live off of.
Which is fine, I have no problem the the fact that the man worked hard, and was able to save and invest through IRA’s and such. I am not someone who resents people who have done well. Good for him. However, this is where he goes off the rails:
It got me thinking: Can Social Security payments be used for a good cause?
I thought back to something my wise old uncle Cleon told me when he turned 65 in 1978. He said he could use the extra monthly income of $650. After all, he had earned it during his working years. It had been deducted from his paycheck and set aside for him (theoretically at least) in the Social Security trust fund. It was his. So he went down to the Social Security office in Salt Lake City and signed up.
But instead of spending the money on daily living expenses, he signed over the monthly check to his favorite cause, The National Center for Constitutional Studies. He loved teaching Americans about the Constitution and how to preserve it. Through NCCS, he traveled the country giving constitutional seminars to patriotic Americans, and used the Social Security checks to pay for some of his expenses.
Following in my uncle’s footsteps, I’ve decided to sign up for Social Security. Since I don’t need the money to live on, I’ve decided to invest my monthly government check in a variety of good causes. Based on my past earnings, I should receive a check of around $1,800 a month, automatically transferred into my bank account. From there, I’ve instructed the bank to send a check or wire every month to my various causes. It’s that simple.
Many of you may have heard about Warren Buffett and Bill Gates’ Giving Pledge, where billionaires have pledged to donate the majority of their fortunes to charity.
I’ve come up with a similar idea, except this one applies to more people and is something you can do when you are alive: the Social Security Pledge. If you are wealthy enough, you can invest part or all of your Social Security proceeds in a favorite charity, foundation, church, synagogue, or other good cause. You don’t have to limit yourself to giving to non-profit organizations that are tax deductible. You can give your Social Security check to any organization, public or private, or to individuals. You can donate it to your favorite political party. You can give the funds to a student scholarship — for your grandchildren, for example — or to somebody who has a medical need. Or you can invest your government check in free enterprise. Buy shares in individual stocks or mutual funds. Or, better yet, fund inventors who could use the money to advance their work.
There are lots of possibilities. Be creative and have some fun with it. Don’t let the money sit there. Put it to good use!
[…]
John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church, once gave a popular talk called “The Sermon on Wealth.” According to Wesley, if you take the following three steps in life, you will be eminently successful:
1. Work all you can.
2. Save all you can.
3. Give all you can.
Notice he didn’t say, “Spend all you can.” Too many Americans have gotten in financial trouble by overspending and getting in over their heads in debt, so that by retirement time at age 65, they need Social Security because they haven’t saved enough in their company pension plans or individual retirement accounts (IRAs). Or they have to keep working to survive.
As retirees, we can make a difference.
Okay, here is my gripe with this opinion column; for one it says that people should follow his example and give away their social security. Which, if you can afford to do so, is fine. However, there are many people, who worked hard for that money for all of their lives and paid into it for many years and that will the ONLY sort of income that they honestly will have; and to tell them to give it away, is absolutely asinine.
I am not saying that this would happen, but it could; what if some older person, who simply loves his Country, feels guilty for taking a social security check and starts giving away his check and then has to live in poverty? I know it sounds far fetched; but there are people that are quite impressionable out there and would do such a thing, because some idiot, who is very well off, told them to do it.
My friend, if you have come here from a search engine, after searching for “Mark Skousen,” and you were thinking of following his advice; please, don’t. You have worked your entire life for that money. You are entitled to it. Even if you do have an company pension and/or an IRA —- and especially if you do not —- keep your money and use it to live on, you worked for it, keep it! If you want to make a reasonable donation to a charity, then fine, do so. But to squander all of your hard earned social security away, because someone said to do it, is foolish.
I am very highly concerned about the fact that Tucker Carlson, who is the very public figure that he is; and with a website of that caliber, would allow such tripe to be published on it. But, yet, someone like me; who tends to see himself as a common sense minded Americanist, cannot even get published on that site or anywhere else for that matter. I believe it speaks to the condition of the right in this Country. The article quote above was not Christian, Conservative or even libertarian opinion; it was crazy opinion! Anyone with a ounce of common sense would know this; but again, this is the so-called “right” anymore.
This is why I call myself a simple “Americanist” Because the crazy is out in full effect on the right anymore. Sorry, but telling people to give away their social security is craziness and I do not do crazy, some might scoff at that notion. But, common sense goes a long way; and it is sorely lacking on the right, and on a good part of the left.
A song that springs to mind:
How true that song is, when it comes to today’s politics.
Cookie Consent
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests
10 minutes
__utmb
Used to distinguish new sessions and visits. This cookie is set when the GA.js javascript library is loaded and there is no existing __utmb cookie. The cookie is updated every time data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
30 minutes after last activity
__utmc
Used only with old Urchin versions of Google Analytics and not with GA.js. Was used to distinguish between new sessions and visits at the end of a session.
End of session (browser)
__utmz
Contains information about the traffic source or campaign that directed user to the website. The cookie is set when the GA.js javascript is loaded and updated when data is sent to the Google Anaytics server
6 months after last activity
__utmv
Contains custom information set by the web developer via the _setCustomVar method in Google Analytics. This cookie is updated every time new data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
2 years after last activity
__utmx
Used to determine whether a user is included in an A / B or Multivariate test.
18 months
_ga
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gali
Used by Google Analytics to determine which links on a page are being clicked
30 seconds
_ga_
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gid
ID used to identify users for 24 hours after last activity
24 hours
_gat
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests when using Google Tag Manager
1 minute
_gac_
Contains information related to marketing campaigns of the user. These are shared with Google AdWords / Google Ads when the Google Ads and Google Analytics accounts are linked together.
17 more days of this, ya’ll 17 more days…..
Mr. Matthews, you make a mockery of the Progressives and the Democratic Party! You should be kicked off the air for good.
