Author Archives: Uke

Bob Owens, “Bearing Arms” Founder and Editor, Dead at 46

A heartbreaking end for a giant in the 2nd Amendment community.

News has come to us of the death of fellow blogger Bob Owens. Bob was the founder and editor of He was a dedicated hoplophile, an avid shooter and a fierce supporter of the right to keep and bear arms. Our condolences go out to his family, friends and co-workers. He will be missed.

I never met the man, though I wished I could have. He was very passionate about gun rights, and very knowledgeable. His ability to cut right to the bone on a gun debate was very valuable. I’ve been reading him for several years, and his insights were always appreciated. I will miss reading his work.

It was apparently a suicide, with seemingly little or no warning for those close to him.

One only wonder what sort of pain he must have been going through.

If you appreciated his work and have a few bucks, consider donating a bit to the GoFundMe page for his family. My thoughts and prayers are extended to his family and friends in this terrible time.


The Fox News Channel Has Been Horrible For Conservatism

So says John Ziegler at Mediaite:

… It is what the Fox News phenomenon has done to the dynamics of the conservative movement, in my opinion, that have been the most corrosive aspects of the network.

In short, what Fox News did was isolate conservative television “news” and opinion all in one place. This was a great business model but it eliminated the need for “mainstream” outlets to appeal to conservatives and thus liberals strengthened their grip on the majority of “news” outlets.

This not only created a dangerous bubble for conservatives, but it also facilitated a “star system” for conservative leaders which dramatically valued entertainment value over substance.

It’s an excellent point that goes hand-in-hand with what we have written about here many times. We see the polarization of this country and it’s hard to put a bead on exactly why this is the case, but to me this feels like a significant part of it.

When you are a conservative and have your own “conservative outlets,” it’s easy to fall into the trap of preferring to be showcased on those conservative outlets. But all that does is tend to make you known only to conservatives, and the “liberal outlets” become progressively less and less diverse in thought as they lose all but their leftist contributors.

Similarly, we as the consumers of the above news outlets tend to listen to what reinforces our beliefs rather than challenges them. Very few humans do otherwise.

As I mentioned above, we’ve discussed this topic before. But it’s a tough problem to fix even if you can properly diagnose it. Even if you could wave a wand to get rid of FNC, the advent of the Internet has preemptively invalidated any attempt that might be made to get everyone all onto a fewer number of outlets, as in the 70s. Everyone can voluntarily make their own niche blog, and people can voluntarily choose to patron that one, single blog and nothing else.

Compounding the issue, that which is entertaining is often not terribly informative, and those things that are very informative are most often not very entertaining. This is why you get loud, insubstantial louts like O’Reilly on primetime, but FA Hayek would never even get a 30 minute slot, were he alive today. It’s why FNC looks like it does, rather than looking like CSPAN, for example. And we have long suspected that media outlets (not just FNC) run the segments that they do based on what will bring in ad revenue, and cater to their target demo, rather than what is actually newsworthy.

What do you guys think?


Twitter Sues US Over Trump Admin Effort to Unmask Anonymous Users

This is the sort of thing that would potentially have a very chilling effect on free speech. You know, if we still care about such things.

Twitter Inc said in a lawsuit on Thursday that it had received a demand from U.S. officials for records that could reveal the user behind an account opposed to President Donald Trump and that it was challenging the demand in court.

The lawsuit over the account @ALT_uscis, claimed to be run by federal immigration employees, was filed in federal court in San Francisco, where Twitter is based.

Following Trump’s inauguration in January, anonymous Twitter feeds voicing concerns at more than a dozen U.S. government agencies appeared to challenge the president’s views on climate change and other issues.

“The rights of free speech afforded Twitter’s users and Twitter itself under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution include a right to disseminate such anonymous or pseudonymous political speech,” Twitter said in the lawsuit.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which is a defendant in the lawsuit, declined to comment on pending litigation.

Call me crazy, but I am of the belief that the US government should not be able to compel private organizations to unmask their users/members unless (and still via due process) they can prove an immediate national security threat.

This seems… concerning.


Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) To Support Neil Gorsuch

For extra fun, take a read of the impotent responses written by salty Democrats. 🙂

Comments Off on Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) To Support Neil Gorsuch

Posted Without Comment


Trumpcare Isn’t Repealing Obamacare Due to Restrictions on Reconciliation?

Senator Mike Lee says, “Not so fast…”

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, said on Wednesday that the Senate parliamentarian has told him that it may be possible for Republicans to push harder on repealing Obamacare’s regulations than the current House bill, which contradicts the assertion by House leadership that the legislation goes after Obamacare as aggressively as possible under Senate rules.

“What I understood her to be saying is that there’s no reason why an Obamacare repeal bill necessarily could not have provisions repealing the health insurance regulations,” Lee said in an interview with the Washington Examiner, relating a conversation with parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough about reconciliation he had on Tuesday.

Lee also said that the parliamentarian told him it wasn’t until very recently, after the unveiling of the House bill, that any Republican even asked her about the possibility of repealing regulations with a simple majority.

So the story from Ryan and Trump is that we couldn’t do what we wanted to do–what needed to be done–and repeal Obamacare root and branch, due to fact that the rules of reconciliation would not allow it. We were told that we had to pass this bill because we physically cannot get to repeal, right?

But now we find out that nobody even asked the parliamentarian if it was even possible, and come to find out that it is?

Why do I feel like we’re being hosed?


“Stepping On Your Dick,” Part Deux

Regarding the “wiretapping” claim from Trump, it’s been one long, long train of perpetual dick-stepping. Dick-stepping all the way down:

Testifying in front of Congress this morning, FBI Director James Comey said he has seen no evidence to support President Trump’s accusation, first leveled weeks ago on Twitter, that the Obama administration wiretapped Trump Tower during the 2016 general election: “We don’t have any information that supports those tweets,” he declared flatly.

By refusing, over and over again, to back down from Trump’s original, farfetched charge, his administration has inflicted a lot of completely unnecessary damage upon itself, and even upon the so-called special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom.

As if the initial, unsupported claim wasn’t bad enough, the administration spring-boarded off some random shit Andrew Napolitano said. When Trump’s claims were denied by our folks here at home, Napolitano claimed that Obama used British Intelligence to spy on Trump. This was verified by no one, and refuted by the Brits, but our admin ran with it like it was the gospel.

So now, in a completely unforced error, the Trump admin has smeared the Brits to protect his own narrative.

Maybe during his decades as a star of the New York tabloids, Trump came to believe that he could get out of trouble by making outrageous counter-accusations against his tormentors. Maybe in that realm, his belief was well founded. But the rules are different when you’re president.

Frankly, it was ALL unforced errors:
If it didn’t happen, Trump shouldn’t have accused Obama of doing it.
If it did happen, Trump should have presented evidence immediately.
If Napolitano was wrong, they should have let him twist on his own.
If Napolitano was right, they should have verified his info and possibly presented that.

Literally the only thing “productive” accomplished here was Trump and that issue dominating the news cycle for this period of time. And all he had to do was to incinerate his credibility and a percentage of his and our relationship with our oldest ally to do that.


Despite Hysteria, Trump Trending Less Authoritarian Than Obama

At least that’s David French’s take on the matter:

Lost in most of the coverage of President Trump’s decision to rescind the Obama administration’s transgender mandates is a fundamental legal reality — the Trump administration just relinquished federal authority over gender-identity policy in the nation’s federally funded schools and colleges.

A president is “authoritarian” not when he’s angry or impulsive or incompetent or tweets too much. He’s authoritarian when he seeks to expand his own power beyond constitutional limits. In this regard, the Obama administration — though far more polite and restrained in most of its public comments — was truly one of our more authoritarian.

I agree with this almost entirely. In rhetoric throughout the campaign, and even often since, Trump has sounded very authoritarian. It seemed that his tendencies toward heavy-handed exertions of authority were being revealed on a near daily basis.

However, where has this talk led? Well, in most cases, toward rollbacks of federal authority. That is certainly not the sort of thing that a committed authoritarian would prefer to do.

I will not typically look a gift horse in the mouth, and don’t now, but I can’t help but consider why things are turning out in such stark contrast to Trump’s rhetoric? I would posit 3 possibilities:

1) Trump’s rhetoric is wholly self-ego-boosting. He does X, but talks it up in authoritarian terms because he thinks it makes him sound (and makes him feel) stronger and more powerful. He doesn’t really realize, or care, that many don’t want their president to sound authoritarian. It’s all for himself.

2) His aides are moderating his tendencies. This is much as his supporters said would be the case. He talks boldly (sometimes outright crazy talk), but his aides tell him what he can actually do, resulting in policy that is pretty normal.

3) It’s still too early and any judgments at this point are moot. He hasn’t been stymied yet on a major act that didn’t have an easy and legal workaround. What happens when he is, is anyone’s guess.

As I said, it is still early, but as of this moment, he is not acting fascistically as many of his leftist opponents would have you believe. And their accusations aren’t even hyperbole; they are outright 180 degrees from the truth, at this time.


NH Passes Constitutional Carry!

It should be considered a major victory when purple states trend this well on gun rights.

From GoA:

New Hampshire becomes the 13th state to adopt a permitless carry law, now that Gov. Chris Sununu has signed GOA-backed legislation into law.

GOA Executive Director praised the hard work of New Hampshire residents, who diligently urged their state officials to support SB 12.

. . .

“This is a win for the people of New Hampshire, and an even bigger win for the rule of law and the Constitution,” said Pratt.

“The Second Amendment protects our right to bear arms from infringement, so honest citizens should not have to seek permission or be registered like sex offenders before exercising their right to protect themselves.”

I’m particularly excited about this part:

SB 12 takes effect immediately upon Gov. Sununu’s signature.

… since my CCP just expired recently, and this’ll save me 10 bucks. 🙂


Ben Shapiro: “When the Enemy of Your Enemy is–Your Enemy”

(Note: Please read through the article and do not stop after the 1st page, hastily thinking that the article is an argument about free speech. It is not.)

Over at NR, Ben Shapiro writes:

Unfortunately, many conservatives have embraced this sort of binary thinking: If it angers the Left, it must be virtuous. Undoubtedly, that’s a crude shorthand for political thinking. It means you never have to check the ideas of the speaker, you merely have to check how people respond to him.

That’s dangerous. It leads to supporting bad policies and bad men. The enemy of your enemy isn’t always your friend. Sometimes he’s your enemy. Sometimes he’s just a dude sitting there minding his own business.

You don’t have enough information to know.

The logic of “if he melts snowflakes, he’s one of us” actually hands power to the Left, by allowing leftists to define conservatives’ friends.

I’d be inclined to think that Ben’s been cribbing off Revo discussions for the last few weeks/months when we were talking about binary, tribalist tendencies (though I know he’s sharp enough to come up with his own material, of course).

Ben’s absolutely right. We’ve all seen this perplexing tendency of folks to reflexively support public figures on no basis other than the thinking that, “Well, they seem to have the right enemies.” At best, this entitles them to a closer look, but it does not and cannot mean that they are necessarily your ally.

It is, actually, the height of intellectual laziness to try to collect allies just by seeing who your enemies are hating on. And it puts you on irredeemably unsound intellectual footing. Do not do this.

Some helpful advice to you Revoistas:
David Duke is not your friend just because the left protests him.
There are more than two tribes.
There is no single, absolutely evil tribe.
There is no single, absolutely good tribe.
Good and evil is not clearly defined on the political spectrum.
Do not fall into the trap of black and white thinking.
Use your gray matter.


I Hate Everyone… and I Feel Fine

(Preface: Let me be clear that I do not literally house a seething hatred for all people to include you Revoistas, my family or close friends.)

Before I go any further, allow me to say that the theme of this post is EMOTIONAL INVESTMENT.

In a general sense, over the course of the last decade-plus of my life, I will admit to having become more misanthropic in my views. Every politician and public figure I know has disappointed me. Family members have disappointed me. My first Commander in Chief seriously disappointed me. In work, I’ve done my very best, trying to comport myself with honor and competence at all times, and often received nothing but a knife in the back for it as reward.

But such is life, and I don’t love my loved ones for them not living up to my expectations. And I merely come equipped with a rear back plate in my body armor these days for everyday life.

However, the more specific point I mean to make is to my relatively recent epiphany on emotional investment. This election cycle pretty much clinched it for me:

More below the fold…


Trump Presidency, Day 1: A Big Lie About a Little Thing

To excoriate the media, with no questions taken in response, is one thing. To do it while counterclaiming a fantastically absurd and easily provable lie is a whole ‘nother thing. To do it about such a trivial matter as… crowd sizes? Frankly, it reeks of insecurity, to my ear.

Earlier, Trump visited the CIA and used the opportunity to state that he really is on the side of the Intel Community, “1000%” (contrary to the vibe he was sending out in recent weeks regarding Russian involvement in the election). Oh, and to complain about these crowd number estimates. Because, hey, that’s the perfect venue for such a thing.

Trump previously proclaimed that he was “getting to work on day 1.” I certainly hope this is merely what could charitably be called “a slow start,” and not actually representative of the rest of his term.


Breaking (CNN): POTUS/PEOTUS Briefed — Putin Has the Goods On Trump [UPDATED]

Whoopsie daisy…

(CNN) — Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN.

The allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible.

It seems we just had this conversation a day or two ago…

Anywho, I’m sure this isn’t consequential in any way.



This does not jibe with CNN’s implication that the most recent classified report contained the allegations and, presumably, evidence and sourcing.

I wonder what the real story is.


Tucker Carlson: “Why Should I Send My 19y Old Son To Defend the Baltics?”

Watched Tucker Carlson tonight. This happened:

Ronald Reagan is rolling in his grave while Garry Kasparov is rolling his eyes.

Please note, the argument Tucker is making here is not merely against frivolous military adventurism. We all understand not sending our sons and daughters into harms way without a good cause. He is, in fact, arguing against sending military assistance to countries that we are obligated to protect against Soviet/Communist/totalitarian aggression, to defend the cause of freedom.

Which is an argument, I guess, but I’m sure it’s a bad one.

What Trump and Carlson are doing now is playing the part of Neville Chamberlain. Nothing more. Take the Sudetenland. Take the Baltics. Whatever. None of our business.

It may be worth questioning if it’s appropriate to call Trump the “Leader of the Free World” if he truly does continue signaling that we should pull out of our military commitments to our allies.


Why Do Jews Vote Leftist?

Ben Shapiro explains:

The vast majority of Jews are not practicing Jews. The vast majority of Jews are secular and are Jewish by ethnicity only.


Dr. Thomas Sowell Retires at 86

“Farewell,” by Dr. Thomas Sowell.

The man isn’t dead so I will try not to make this sound like a eulogy, but I will miss his contributions to conservative thought all the same.

At 86 years of age, the man has more than earned himself some respite, but I will admit to being very glad–and perhaps selfishly so–that he didn’t retire at the “normal” age of 65. He’s been just as valuable to the cause of conservatism in the last 20 years as in the previous 20 before that. His insights are particularly valuable because he is willing to ask the questions that few others are willing to ask, and he doesn’t shy away from the answers if they end up being uncomfortable ones.

(Kevin D. Williamson has a great tribute article from 2011 that expounds on a lot of this.)

I will simply close by saying that I think I speak for the entire Real Revo cob logger-ship when I say that we wish Dr. Sowell a pleasant retirement, and wish to thank him for his many years of tireless and eminently enlightening work.


Army Breaks the Streak!

Full recap here.

Great game. Very exciting back and forth. And it feels good to end a 15 year streak.


“We Do Not Have a Trade Deficit”

We have a “capital surplus.”

Of course, investing in the United States already is a very attractive proposition, which is — almost everybody gets this wrong – the main reason why we have trade deficits.

Trade deficits are partly a question of consumer preference — American consumers really do like Hondas more than Japanese consumers like Buicks — but they are not mainly a question of consumer preference. They are mainly a question of investor preference — and investors prefer the United States, which is why there is almost twice as much foreign direct investment in the United States as in China, even though China’s economy has grown at a much faster rate over the past 20 years.

When we trade a shiny one million USD for a Chinese product, that Million USD must come back at some point. Sure, it might float out there or be held for a time (the USD is the world’s reserve currency after all, and is of great value to all), but they all eventually find their way home. If they were all used to simply buy our stuff, we wouldn’t have a trade deficit, or a very negligible one.

What actually happens is investment. Foreign investors see the US as a wonderful place to invest their money for a return. We’re stable, have pretty good infrastructure, have a relatively educated labor force, nobody has to set aside a 50% cut to bribe the cops to keep the doors open, etc. With those dollars reinvested into the American economy, we create more jobs here at home, obviously.

What happens, though, if we wish to place tariffs on those imports in order to protect American jobs? Surely, that will compel companies to stay and produce here, will cause people to buy domestic, which saves or creates more jobs here at home. Brilliant, right?

Well, Cato explains:

“Slapping higher tariffs on imports will only deprive foreigners of the dollars they would have earned by selling in the U.S. market. This, in turn, will reduce the supply of dollars on the international currency market, raise the value of the dollar relative to other currencies and make dollar-priced U.S. exports more expensive for foreign buyers, thus reducing demand for our exports. Eventually the volume of exports will fall along with imports, and the trade deficit will remain largely unchanged.”

It truly is the greatest irony that the tariffs meant to save American jobs would actually end up costing jobs. I curse the situation that we find ourselves in now, where we must for some reason beat back this long discredited know-nothingism.

Oh well. Maybe our kids and grandkids will feel our pain when they surely one day have to beat back the scourge of geocentrism.


The Alt-Right at Work

“Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!”

That’s how Richard B. Spencer saluted more than 200 attendees on Saturday, gathered at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, D.C., for the annual conference of the National Policy Institute, which describes itself as “an independent organization dedicated to the heritage, identity, and future of people of European descent in the United States, and around the world.”

. . .

“America was until this past generation a white country designed for ourselves and our posterity,” Spencer said. “It is our creation, it is our inheritance, and it belongs to us.”

The audience offered cheers, applause, and enthusiastic Nazi salutes.

I am not offering the above as a negative comment against Trump or Trump supporters generally, but rather of the alt-right more specifically. It is, to my ear, extremely disturbing and distasteful. I encourage you to watch the short video in its entirety.

There’s no point in Godwin’ing this sort of rhetoric; it delivers Godwin in spades all by itself.


Post-Election Advice: Relax

Unless you are part of the Hillary Clinton campaign, you didn’t lose.
Unless you are part of Trump’s campaign, you didn’t win.

If you are currently rioting or even weeping over this, stop. If you are fist pumping around the room and gloating over “your” win, stop.

Every day is a new day. Go to work. Live your life. Keep things in perspective.


A Lesson on Journalism and Self-Awareness


Credit to Jimmy.


Body/Dash Cam Footage of Keith Scott Shooting Released

Charlotte-Mecklenburg police have, under heavy pressure, have released the body cam and dash cam videos from the recent shooting of Keith Lamont Scott in Charlotte. The police have maintained the whole time that the suspect had a gun and was a threat. A gun was photographed at the scene that forensics have now said had Scott’s fingerprints and DNA on it.

As we know, BLM and similar groups have decried this as another unlawful shooting, alternately saying that the suspect did not have a gun, or that he wasn’t a threat if he did.

Dash cam footage (suspect exits vehicle @ 0:44, is shot @ 0:54):

The body cam footage (suspect visible @ 0:17, shot @ approx 0:18-19):

The body cam has only a split second of useful footage IMO. At the critical moment of the shoot, the cop’s head gets in the way and you can’t see anything else until the suspect is down. And for the moment that you can actually see the suspect, the video is still quite inconclusive, but you can rather clearly see the suspect’s holster around his right ankle. Also, it seems that the suspect is holding a dark object in his right hand that visually elongates his right arm, but the video is too blurry to definitively assess exactly what it is.

The dash cam shows much more, if from a much further distance so as pixelation and clarity start to be an issue.

My thoughts on the dash cam as follows:
More below the fold…


Go Ahead… Tell Me This Isn’t a Cult

Ann Coulter states that she “would die for” Trump.

“I worship him like the North Koreans worship the ‘Dear Leaders’ — yes, I would die for him,” the conservative commentator joked to Politico’s “Off Message” podcast.

Still looking to invest in mind control machine of Trump’s, if anyone has buy-in info on it.


Jonathan Hoenig: “Why Hillary Has My Vote”

Jonathan Hoenig at Capitalist Pig writes an argument how a free market capitalist can support Hillary over Trump:

I start with the premise that the only thing that can save the country is capitalism.

Yet sixty-three percent of Democrats and 49 percent of Republicans view Wall Street as detrimental to the economy, as reported by Daily Wire. Barely half view global free trade positively, according to Pew. The majority of young people now reject capitalism outright.

Reversing the trend will require decades of education. For Americans, capitalism remains the unknown ideal.
In this context, Donald Trump’s business credentials are exactly what makes him so dangerous. In the minds of voters, Trump represents capitalism. But as was pointed out in this space five years ago, Donald Trump is explicitly anti-capitalist on issues ranging from taxes to anti-trust to trade.

Consider that the most catastrophic financial collapse in U.S. history came under President Herbert Hoover, the Republican businessman who enacted trade restrictions to “bring back jobs.”

What followed wasn’t just economic misery, but the subsequent election of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the institutionalized welfare that hasn’t stopped metastasizing since.

In effect, what worries me most isn’t Trump, but what comes after Trump. “We tried free markets under Donald Trump,” they’ll say. “Look how it failed!”

I respect Jonathan Hoenig and his steadfast free market positions. He’s on FoxBusiness frequently and he always takes positions that align almost perfectly with Revo editorial positions on economics. And while I personally think that my arm would self-amputate before it would allow me to pull the handle for Hillary, his broad point about how Clinton really could be better for this country’s future than Trump, is not crazy talk.

Hillary is not friendly to capitalism. This must be made clear. But that’s precisely the point. She is not a capitalist figurehead. Whatever bullshit she might do in her 4-8 years, she won’t be seen as a capitalist representative, and capitalism won’t be seen to have failed as much as it is Hillary and her policies failing.

On the surface, Trump is “A Capitalist Tycoon.” He is the Monopoly Guy. He owns a show where he hires people on the basis of business acumen and talent, and brutally fires people that don’t make the cut, to the delight of the crowd. He makes no apologies for being rich from his business dealings, and in fact revels in it. He should be, by all rights, the poster boy for Capitalism. And he will be.

But make no mistake that this is all a thin veneer over Trump’s actual instincts. He is wearing Capitalism like a skin-suit.

Trump carries with him a host of positions–both current and past–that praise economic protectionism, high tariffs, economic isolationism, utilizing lawfare rather than voluntary financial persuasion, etc. And the fear is that despite his outward appearance of a capitalist, he would actually implement many non-capitalist policies that would be harmful. And when those policies bring the pain, people will look for a scapegoat.

That scapegoat will almost certainly be Capitalism (and those out there that the public views as Capitalists). This is despite the fact that the things that brought ruin weren’t capitalist policies or capitalists in the first place. But in the heat of the moment, the public won’t care about such details. They’re not going to wonk out to analyze the details. They’re going to use their reptilian brain and not much more.

Ultimately, I cannot vote for Hillary because she’s an abominable human, and I cannot place my stamp of approval upon a person I believe to be so. If only for my own conscience. But I believe it is important to see the non-crazy argument for a capitalist to support Hillary over Trump.


Hillary Promises to Build the Wall

When it comes to building walls, nobody’s gonna do it better than Hillary. Trump says he’s going to build a wall on the southern border and make Mexico pay for it? Trump’s a piker; that’s nothing. Hillary’s going to build a 360 degree wall around our entire country and make everyone pay for it.

WASHINGTON—Hillary Clinton’s plan to deter companies from leaving the U.S. will include an “exit tax,” her campaign said Monday, making it even more restrictive than President Barack Obama’s proposals.

The Obama proposal has gone nowhere in Congress, stopped by Republicans who say it amounts to erecting walls around the U.S. tax system rather than making it more favorable. Mrs. Clinton would go further, requiring companies to pay U.S. taxes on deferred foreign earnings if they attempt to “game” her new threshold, a campaign aide said Monday.

Mrs. Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, will speak about corporate taxes on Wednesday in Iowa. The aide said she would unveil “another major component” of her plan then.

Don’t you love it when we can give new life to old ideas?

1 Comment