John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat
Source: U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy in 1960

Friday, March 22, 2019

The WAWG Blog: Andy Hailey- American Socialism: ‘Equally Empowers & Protecting All US Citizens’

Source:Volitairenet- A little history of American socialism 
Source:The New Democrat Plus

Source:The WAWG Blog: Andy Hailey- American Socialism: ‘Equally Empowers & Protecting All US Citizens’

What Andy Hailey laid out in his piece was American progressivism which the New Deal, Great Society, Eisenhower’s national infrastructure program, the civil rights law, the Nixon environmental laws. Things that Theodore Roosevelt advocated for when he was President and after his presidency, that President Woodrow Wilson also advocated for when he was President when it came to the safety net in this country.

Source:Wikipedia- Democratic Socialists of America 
 I’ve blogged about this many times before, but progressivism is not the same as socialism however you define socialism. A lot of aspects of socialism are actually very regressive when you’re talking about communism or Neo-Communism that you see in Venezuela, where the national state isn’t in complete control of the country unlike in Cuba.

Progressives, believe in the private market and private enterprise, free trade, the rule of law, progressive taxation, but not universal high taxation, fiscal responsibility even,  ( President Lyndon Johnson had a balanced budget in 1968 ) but they also believe in a social insurance net for people who fall on hard times. The safety net from the Progressive, is different from the welfare state of the Socialist who says that all employee benefits should be provided for by the government, instead of employers. The Progressive, just wants public assistance programs like Unemployment for people who truly need it. Unlike the Socialist who wants welfare programs to be universal regardless of income.

Regardless of what you hear from the so-called mainstream media today when they’re talking about Congressional Democrats and other leftist Democrats that they call Progressives, whether it’s Bernie Sanders or Alexandria O. Cortez, or any other members of the so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus, these people are Socialists, not Progressives. They believe that American progressivism hasn’t gone far enough and we now need a welfare state and government big enough to take care of the people. Which is different from progressivism which advocates for a social insurance system for the people who truly need it. While at the same time we encourage Americans to be as economically independent as possible so the resources are always there for the people who truly need it.

“In other industrialized countries, movement towards a democratic form of socialism has been strong enough to win national elections. So why hasn’t socialism ever become a powerful force in American politics? There are lots of reasons, as well as younger generations who align with socialist ideals that may bring the necessary gusto. NewsHour Weekend Special Correspondent Jeff Greenfield reports.”
Source:PBS NewsHour: Jeff Greenfield- Is Socialism Having Its Moment in U.S. Elections When the Socialist Party was  a major factor in American politics.

Thursday, March 21, 2019

Commentary Magazine: Abe Greenwald- 'Our Socialist Socialites'

Source:Commentary Magazine- The Democratic Socialists, as well as Hipsters of America, LOL!
Source:Commentary Magazine: Abe Greenwald- 'Our Socialist Socialites'

It's not everyday that I agree with anything that is written by Commentary Magazine, except when they're critiquing both the Far-Left and Far-Right in America which is what they do along with National Review as two of the last of the great Center-Right publications in America, along with The Wall Street Journal and a few others. The reason why I'm on the Commentary email list is to see articles like this where Abe Greenwald compares the modern socialist movement in America with a social movement, I want to thank God ( even though I'm Agnostic ) for Commentary.

Source:Real Clear Politics- Yeah, right!!! LOL 
Comparing Socialists with Socialites especially younger Socialists is brilliant, because socialism ( however you define it ) is not just a political movement, but it's a social movement. And I mean social in the sense about people socializing with each other. not socializing businesses ( necessarily ) but people getting together for not just a common purpose, but getting together because they have a lot of things in common.

Source:Science Matters- Welcome to the modern New-Left 
And I'll give a great example of that: I'm paraphrasing and even rephrasing here, but it's the old expression that you're socialist when you're younger and somewhat naive, but as you get older and enter the real world in your career and you settle down, you get married, you have kids you become much more conservative ( in the classic and real sense ) especially with your own money and realize that those high tax rates that you were advocating for and even demonstrating for in your 20s, might not seem so groovy or awesome anymore ( depending on your era but now seem far out or far-left, pun intended ) and seem like they're too much.

And you realize that capitalism, is pretty damn good and is the reason why you have the good job that you have today, are able to own your own home, don't have to rely on the government for your news and information, are able to socialize and assemble with whoever you want, whenever you want, without fear of being locked up simply because of who you're socializing with, can afford to have and raise kids now, etc.

That we all grow up as a country as we enter our mid 30s and get even older and realize we all have bills to pay and if we don't want to be dependent on government or pay high tax rates for our economic survival, we not only have to work hard, but need to be very productive and good at our jobs. And the way to do these things is through the capitalist, private enterprise, liberal democratic order and world. Not by trying to overthrow the current government either through democratic or revolutionary means.

Whether it was the Hippies from the New-Left of the 1960s and 1970s or what was Occupy Wall Street from 2011-12, to the Bernie Sanders Movement of today, or the Beatniks from the Silent Generation from the 1950s we've always had at least since the 50s a movement of young hipster radicals who are the coolest and hippest people around, as well as the most politically radical as well, at least coming from the Left. People who are not only devoted to their political causes ( until they grow up and enter the real world ) but who are dedicated to their social movement and culture and being the coolest person around who is always part of the current hipster wave if not on top of it. Who look down at people who hard for a living and are successful in life and just view them as part of the imperial, fascist capitalist regime. ( I'm a little rusty with my 1960s and 1970s New-Left vocabulary )

Socialism, has never just been a political movement and it's never just been a political movement in America either. The hippest people in America and outside of America are either Socialists or people who pretend to be Socialists, but in real-life are very wealthy and have made a lot of money for themselves who go out-of-their-way to avoid paying high taxes. And I'm thinking of the Jane Fonda's of the world and other so-called Hollywood Leftists who has been independently wealthy at least since the early 70s if not longer from her great career in Hollywood.

Hollywood Leftists and other hipster Socialists have been around forever and just goes to my point that the coolest people around tend to be Socialists, not that they're aren't on hipsters on the Right: Libertarians, are a great example of that, but the coolest people around tend to at least officially view themselves as one type of Socialist or another. But along with Hollywood Leftists I tend to not take them very seriously and have much respect for them with Bernie Sanders and few others being exceptions to that.

Because again for a lot of these people being a Socialist tends to be a phase for them, but also the most left amongst us in America also tend to be the hippest and are in on all the latest trends  and in on all the latest fashion statements and if anything author those statements themselves whether it's clothing, new technology, coffee, marijuana, whatever it might be. All these great things that come from our capitalist, private enterprise system. Like the environmentalists who drives a SUV, or the animal rights activist who wears leather jackets and other leather clothing, I mean who do they think there're fooling or even bullshitting. But Socialists have always represented more than just a political movement in America and outside of America and always will.

"Provided to YouTube by The Orchard Enterprises

Socialist Socialite · Tricks & Sleeves

Locked out of Space

℗ 2016 Aeroplane Music Records

Released on: 2016-09-09

Music Publisher: Songbroker

Auto-generated by YouTube."
Source:Tricks & Sleeves: Socialist Socialite- Hum, I'm seeing a tiger on The Moon: now I know I'm high. LOL

Wednesday, March 20, 2019

CATO Institute: Opinion- Michael Tanner: 'Democratic Primary Voters Turn To Socialism'

Source:National Review- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont 
Source:CATO Institute: Opinion- Michael Tanner: 'Democratic Primary Voters Turn To Socialism'

This is a great a timely piece from CATO's Michael Tanner, because I was watching The Lead with Jake Tapper in CNN yesterday afternoon, ( you can do that when you work from your desk and office ) and they were talking about this exact same issue.

Source:FOX News- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez: two self-described Democratic Socialist members of Congress 
Tapper, asked Conservative CNN political analyst  Amanda Carpenter basically the exact same question and she responded something to the effect of why the Democratic Party is now embracing socialism and she talked about the primary voters in the Democratic Party and their support of socialism. Karen Finney, who is a respected Democratic strategist and CNN political analyst said something like, "this is not true since only one declared Democratic presidential candidate is a Socialist." That person being Senator Bernie Sanders, who is no longer the only self-described Democratic Socialist in Congress with several Democratic Socialists getting elected to the House last year. He's not even the only Socialist in the Senate, just the only self-described Socialist. which is very different.

CNN's Karen Finney, completely missed the point yesterday ( perhaps intentionally ) about Socialists and socialism in the Democratic Party. I realize that socialist and socialism are still scary words within the Democratic Party Leadership and establishment that Finney is part of, because when they think of those two words they remember George McGovern and the McGoevrnites in the 1970s and the rise of the New-Left in the late 60s and 70s. And all the negative stereotypes that come from being both a Socialist and a Democrat, especially Socialist-Democrat. But socialist and socialism are not scary words with young Democrats and young Independents who are considering voting Democratic in 2020 and voted Democratic overwhelmingly in 2018.

When your current frontrunner at least as far as your declared presidential candidates is polling at 30% and leads every one else by at least double figures which is what Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders is doing right now for 2020, you not just have more than one Socialist in your party, but you have a someone who probably represents 30% of the party if not 1/3 or more than that if the Jill Stein voters were to come out for Senator Sanders next year instead of Dr. Stein, you not only just have more than one Socialist in your party, which is stating the obvious anyway since the Democratic Party has always had Socialists in their party whether they're self-described or not, but you have a socialist faction inside of your party.

The Democratic Party today now has a large block of Democrats including Democratic Socialists voters, who embrace the ideas of Socialists and socialism and want to see those policies put into place in this country. That's just the state of the Democratic Party right now whether the Karen Finney's and other members of the Democratic Party Leadership are ready to acknowledge that or not.

"2012 GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain discusses future of the Democratic Party."
Source:FOX Business: After The Bell With David Asman- Herman Cain: 'Democrats Hard Turn To Socialism'- Not sure that Herman Cain is the best spokesman on the Democratic Party, but I don't work for FOX News. Thank God! 

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

Knowledge Hub: History of Prohibition- Why It Failed?

Source:Knowledge Hub- Big Government, is coming for you 
Source:Knowledge Hub: History of Prohibition- Why It Failed?

"People like booze. Now. But there was a time alcohol was a matter of debate and was made illegal. Here is why it failed.

Music by No Sustain

Written and Edited by Tyler Franklin"

Source:Google Sites- Yes, please end the War on Drugs 
As someone who is a nondrinker ( when it comes to alcohol ) I believe I have a lot of credibility when it comes to alcohol and other prohibitions, simply because I'm not looking to keep products like alcohol, tobacco, sugar, salt, caffeine, and any other current drugs that Americans consumer that are currently legal simply so I can continue to consume them, but because I don't believe they should be illegal. I don't want to legalize marijuana and decriminalize harder narcotics because I want to consume them, but because I don't believe people should be put in prison or even jail simply for consuming or possessing these products.

I simply as a Liberal don't believe that people should be arrested and put in jail simply for doing or consuming things that are dangerous and come with negative side-effects. You need a better argument than, "this is bad for you and dangerous and if you do this or take this, you're going to be locked, because these products are bad for you." Or you need a better argument than these products violate some people's religious and moral values in order to outlaw something. You need a fact-based argument that lays out that the negative consequences of using let's say risky products or so great that if they're allowed to be consumed in society that not only will the people who consume them be negatively affected. but the people around then and the greater society will be harmed to the point that society couldn't afford those negative affects. An argument that has never been made to outlaw alcohol or any other product that comes with real risk in America.

So why bas prohibition failed?

I'll give you a hypothetical: think about a father who doesn't want his daughter ( let's say ) seeing her boyfriend anymore simply because the father doesn't like him and doesn't want him around his daughter and he tells his daughter that and perhaps even tells her boyfriend that he doesn't' want him seeing his daughter anymore and if does, there will be real consequences for that: you think the daughter is going to stop seeing her boyfriend simply because her father no longer wants her to see him, especially if her father can't explain why he doesn't' like him, or why he's bad for her? Well, if you're familiar with teenage girls in America and perhaps outside of this country, you know that they won't stop seeing people simply because their parent or parents tell them not to.

The so-called War on Drugs whether it was alcohol prohibition in the 1920s or the war on harder narcotics today like marijuana ( and there's still a question of whether marijuana is actually a harder narcotic than marijuana ) has failed for the same reasons. Just because you tell someone they can't do something especially if the person is an addict or they know what they're doing is not so dangerous than they can die from, especially if they don't abuse alcohol or marijuana, doesn't mean they'll stop doing it or taking whatever they're into. It just means that what they're currently doing is illegal and that they may end up in jail or prison if they're caught in possession or consuming what they're into.

What you get with the so-called War on Drugs is an overcrowded, unaffordable, and unsustainable criminal justice and prison incarceration system where maybe 1-10 American prison inmates don't represent any actual threat to society. If they represent any threat whatsoever to anyone, it's to themselves, but because they're addicts. If your'e a true fiscal Conservative, you hate the so-called War on Drugs and criminal justice system in America, because it's so expensive, because we lock up people for what they do to themselves. You're cool with locking up predators who hurt innocent people especially if the punishment is just, but locking up people for what they do to themselves is a waste of tax dollars and you hate that as a fiscal Conservative.

So the War on Alcohol and the broader so-called War on Drugs has failed for several reasons: One, almost 50 years later after President Richard Nixon launched this so-called war we're still fighting it. That should be a pretty good clue there. But now thanks to this so-called war we have an overcrowded, unaffordable, unsustainable criminal justice system in a time when we're running trillion-dollar deficits and have a national debt of over 20 trillion-dollars.

Just because you outlaw something doesn't mean it goes away, it just means that it's now illegal and will go underground. And the people who get caught will end up in prison simply because they were caught in possession or caught using a product that Big Government says is dangerous and should be illegal.

Just like the father who tells his daughter to stop seeing her boyfriend for no apparent reason: they'll continue to see each other, but behind her parents backs and no longer be upfront and honest about their relationship. 

Monday, March 18, 2019

The Washington Post: Opinion- Brian Lamb: 'Washington is Full of Waste and C-SPAN Lets Us Wallow In It'

Source:The Washington Post- If you're a taxpayer your message should be: "thank God for Brian Lamb and C-SPAN!"
Source:The Washington Post: Opinion- Brian Lamb: 'Washington is Full of Waste and C-SPAN Lets Us Wallow In It'

"The Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network (C-SPAN) broadcast from the House of Representatives for the first time in March 1979, uncovering a process shrouded in secrecy. C-SPAN founder Brian Lamb says how Americans use that transparency is still a work in progress. Read more:"

Source:News Daily- Some of our elected leaders 
When I think of C-SPAN, I think of the expression the cold hard truth, because that's what it gives us which is an inside, painfully truthful look about what our tax dollars are paying for and how our elected government works. People might argue ( especially career politicians ) that people would be better off not knowing about how our government works, because it just shows us how depressing and inefficient it works and all of that.

But the easy counter to that is that if you buy a car, you want to know exactly what you're getting with the money that you're spending on the car. The great handling, smooth ride, the power, but you also want to know about whatever drawbacks that you might get from that car. Low gas mileage, the durability of the car, etc. You don't want to know why your new car is in the shop once a month or a couple times of month, not six months down the road ( no pun intended ) but upfront before you buy the car.

Well, government is the same way. The U.S. Government which is the largest organization in the world both in money and in personal with a budget of over 4 trillion-dollars and a staff of over 2 million and since we're paying for all of that so-called service and a lot of waste we need to know exactly what we're paying for.

That's what the Government Accountability Office is for, but that's also what C-SPAN is for. Some might say that's the job of Congress to hold the government accountable. Two problems with that: one, Congress is part of the government ( hopefully that isn't any newsflash to U.S, Government students, or Millennial's ) and if it's Congress's job to hold the government accountable, then whose job is it to hold Congress accountable? And two, Congress is made up of politicians ( to state the obvious ) who in too many cases are just if not more interested in getting reelected and getting promoted, as they are in doing their jobs and the right thing. Because if they do their jobs and the right things, it could cost them votes and contributions with people who want the status-quo, because they benefit from the current corruption in government.

Some might say it's the job of the people to hold their government accountable. Which is true, but how are they supposed to do that without the information and facts: just listen and take the word of their politicians and automatically assume they're doing what's right and doing their jobs correctly? Does anyone who is sane, sober, intelligent, and aware of their surroundings actually tend to take the word of any politician that they're familiar with, actually take the word of a typical politician whether they're a career politician or not? Of course not, so we need those eyes and ears in our government and then we need the people to actually examine what they're seeing and take in the information that they get about how our government actually works in this country. Even if that means putting down their smartphone for more than five minutes at a time, or even hours at a time to see how their tax dollars are being spent in this country.

Some might argue who advocate for a closed government that the reason why politicians and government is so unpopular in America and why a 20% rating is actually good numbers for any Congress, ( "hey, if only 8-10 Americans think we're doing a bad job, we must being something right" ) is because we allow cameras in Congress both in the House and Senate and The White House briefing ( even if they're only once every 2 months now ) and we broadcast and cover our government meetings and get to hear from our public officials. And we get to hear about Congress not doing their jobs and not even passing their own budget and appropriations bills and in some cases both the House and Senate not even passing their own budget in their respective chambers. Well, that just makes my point for be, because all C-SPAN and other news organizations do is show exactly what our politicians and other public officials are doing. What they're saying and how they voted and what they proposed and signed into law. Things that we wouldn't know about if we didn't allow cameras and reporters into government. 

Friday, March 15, 2019

FOX Business: Bulls & Bears- David Asman: National Debt Surpasses $22 Trillion

Source:FOX Business- America's national credit card debt 
Source:FOX Business: Bulls & Bears- David Asman: National Debt Surpasses $22 Trillion

"“Bulls & Bears” panel on how the U.S. national debt surpassed $22 trillion and whether the drop in tax revenues will be blamed on President Trump.

FOX Business Network (FBN) is a financial news channel delivering real-time information across all platforms that impact both Main Street and Wall Street. Headquartered in New York — the business capital of the world — FBN launched in October 2007 and is the leading business network on television, topping CNBC in Business Day viewers for the second consecutive year. The network is available in more than 80 million homes in all markets across the United States. Owned by FOX, FBN has bureaus in Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C. and London."

Replace Donald Trump with Barack Obama as President with 22 trillion national debt and a big tax cut from last year and have with this same panel on this show and let's hear them talk about how the national debt is not that big of a deal or a real concern. You might think that you're death trying to hear that conversation, simply because you would never hear them talking that way. Other than maybe Steve Forbes who never believed that the national debt and deficits are that big of a deal regardless of who the President is and the size of the deficit and debt, you wouldn't hear that conversation at all.

You would instead hear things like: "those tax and spend Democrats are sending America into bankruptcy and borrowing and spending America's future." The old Tea Party arguments ( and they are old ) from 2011, 12, and 13 would come back again. My whole point here is when you have a national debt that's 80-90% of your economy and it's a big deal, then the national debt is even larger than that now especially when your economy is growing at 2-3% a year and you have unemployment at less than 4%, then it's a big deal when the national debt is even bigger as it's now. The national debt and deficits knows no political parties and isn't interested in politics at all. If the national debt is a big deal, then it's a big deal regardless of which party is in power at The White House.

The only difference here is that we have a Republican President instead of a Democratic President, with Republicans feeling no political advantage whatsoever in talking about the dangers of the national debt when their party is in The White House. Which is a bad thing because the national debt was a problem during the Obama Administration and probably had some affect on the lack of economic growth in the economy, even though job growth was very solid for most of the Obama Presidency, but economic growth tended to lag behind that job growth.

But it's a bigger problem now especially with the economy growing now and with the Republican Congress and President Trump the last two years voluntarily raising the debt and deficit with new spending and tax cuts when they didn't have to, when instead they could've started paying down the deficit and moving the country towards a balanced budget. Again, the national debt doesn't know politics and political parties and is there regardless of who is in The White House and running Congress. So when politicians try to take advantage of it when they're out-of-power, it can come back to bite them once they're back in power and the national debt grows ever larger on their watch.

Thursday, March 14, 2019

The New Democrat: Federalists vs. Unitarians - The Great Debate About The Role of Government

Source:Slide Player- Our first Federalists 
From Wikipedia

"Federalism is the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments (provincial, state, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism by the United States of America under the Constitution of 1787, is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established.[1] It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status.[2]

Federalism differs from confederalism, in which the general level of government is subordinate to the regional level, and from devolution within a unitary state, in which the regional level of government is subordinate to the general level.[3] It represents the central form in the pathway of regional integration or separation,[4] bounded on the less integrated side by confederalism and on the more integrated side by devolution within a unitary state.[5]

Source:CIMS Cougars- Our first Federalists 
Leading examples of the federation or federal state include India, the United States, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, Germany, Canada, Switzerland, Argentina, and Australia. Some also today characterize the European Union as the pioneering example of federalism in a multi-state setting, in a concept termed the federal union of states."

Federalism, is a big part of my own personal politics and how I describe myself politically. I just go with Liberal or a Liberal Democrat as someone who believes in liberal democracy, ( not the Democratic Party, necessarily ) but someone who believes in individual rights, limited government, separation of powers, decentralization of authority, equal rights and justice: the values that comes from a liberal democracy. I like the term Liberal-Federalist as someone who believes in liberal democracy, as well as the three levels of government: Federal, state and local, but who also believes in liberal democracy and again the individual and equal rights that comes from a liberal democratic federal republic.

From Wikipedia

"A unitary state is a state governed as a single power in which the central government is ultimately supreme. The central government may create (or abolish) administrative divisions (sub-national units).[1] Such units exercise only the powers that the central government chooses to delegate. Although political power may be delegated through devolution to local governments by statute, the central government may abrogate the acts of devolved governments or curtail (or expand) their powers. A large majority of the world's states (165 of the 193 UN member states) have a unitary system of government.[2]

Unitary states stand in contrast with federations, also known as federal states. In federations, the sub-national governments share powers with the central government as equal actors through a written constitution, to which the consent of both is required to make amendments. This means that the sub-national units have a right of existence and powers that cannot be unilaterally changed by the central government.[3]

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is an example of a unitary state. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have a degree of autonomous devolved power, but such power is delegated by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which may enact laws unilaterally altering or abolishing devolution (England does not have any devolved power).[4] Many unitary states have no areas possessing a degree of autonomy.[5] In such countries, sub-national regions cannot decide their own laws. Examples are Romania, the Republic of Ireland and the Kingdom of Norway."

A Unitarian state or Unitarianism ( not the religion, but governmental philosophy ) is the opposite of the federal republic. In a Unitarian government governmental power and in some cases like in a Communist state or Theocratic state, most power governmental and otherwise is centralized with the national government. And in some cases you might have a Unitarian state where you have state or provincial government's, as well as local government's, but where the head of state appoints the people to run the state and local government's.

The Russian Federation today which under their own Constitution is supposed to be a federal republic, but under the Putin Administration they now operate as a Unitarian authoritarian state where President Vladimir Putin is responsible for appointing the governor's of their republics, ( what Russia calls states ) instead of allowing the people in those republics to elect their own leaders. And every Communist state that you will be set up where the national government has most of the power and appoints the people to run the state and local government's, The People's Republic of China, is a perfect example of that.

But a Unitarian state isn't necessarily an authoritarian government. There are social democratic, as well as authoritarian Unitarian states around the world. The United Kingdom, which is one of the great democracies, as well as social democracies in the world is a Unitarian state. In recent years they've delegated more authority to their what we would call state government's. England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The Kingdom of Sweden, which is also a great social democracy is a Unitarian state. The same thing with the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Ireland, and I could go on. See, like with Federalists and federalism where you don't have to be a Liberal or Conservative to believe in it, you don't have to be an authoritarian or democrat to believe in Unitarianism. You don't have to be Left or right either. It's just about what type of government you believe in and what's the role of the national government in your country that you want for it.

From Scott Bradley: 'Would I Be A Federalist or Anti-Federalist?

"Please register for Q&A with Dr. Scott Bradley on Thursdays at 7:00 PM MST at:

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

Facebook Live Thursdays at 7:00 PM MST on:  To Preserve the Nation

Scott’s Website:"