1980 : Carter Accused Reagan Of Being KKK And Starting WWIII

Screenshot 2016-02-29 at 03.18.04 PM-down

3 Sep 1980, Page 4 – at Newspapers.com

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

66 Responses to 1980 : Carter Accused Reagan Of Being KKK And Starting WWIII

  1. omanuel says:

    We have lived in a strange world of make-believe for the past seventy years (1946-2016).

  2. Latitude says:

    This election has come down to one thing for me…
    Open borders and illegal immigration…or not

    Democrats will not close the border…and neither will the republicans.
    The one thing Trump has been consistent on is closing the borders.

    Republicans are not attacking Cruz or Rubio..because they know neither of them will close the border. The big money that controls the republican party makes money on these trade deals and open borders.

    …..and the Republican party would rather see Hillary as president…than someone that will cut off their gravy train

    • powers2be says:

      One problem, on that single issue alone, you do not have a voting majority. So again you and yours will throw away your vote on principle while your country sinks further into a socialist quagmire from which the entire lot of us will not escape. I do not support Trump but will vote against the Hilbot. Can you say the same if Trump is not your candidate? I hope so for the rest of us.

      • Latitude says:

        So again you and yours will throw away your vote on principle
        Then tell me what is the damn difference?

        The republican party has been lying to us all these years. They have never had any intention of closing the border or doing anything about illegals.

        Rubio is their boy of choice…why?…because Rubio will keep the border open and amnesty.

        That said, what is your point?
        Hillary, Sanders, Cruz, Rubio, Romney???….they are all political players and no different

        • Cruz is not a Washington deal-maker, and you’ve offered no evidence that I’ve seen that he is. Just your personal statement of opinion.

          Trump, on the other hand, actually emphasizes the fact that he supports cutting deals with the Democrats. For him, in his mind, that’s a plus.

          He must think it quite funny that he has many folks like you supporting him!

          I asked you before to state what kind of deals you think need to be cut with the Democrats that haven’t already been cut by the Republican leadership. You didn’t answer me.

          So the starkest difference that I see, here, is between you and Trump. And the smallest difference I see, is between Trump and the Democrats.

          And yet, you support him. Go figure.

          It can’t possibly be because of immigration, because Trump has not been consistent on immigration, whereas Cruz has

          What we have here is several million angry, betrayed people … who are trying to get even with their betrayers by aggressively taking down … themselves! Does it get any crazier than that?

        • Latitude says:

          I most certainly did answer you….same dog different collar

          So you’re going to vote for Hillary…and we’re the crazy ones
          …and since Cruz is polling ~15% you’re voting for Hillary??

          Cruz is my first choice…he can’t fill up a Dairy Queen with free ice cream

          Obviously you are happy with continuing the republican (Bush) and democrat (Obama) platform…free trade, open borders, banks, illegals, etc….because both parties are the same dog different collar

        • Latitude says:

          Richard, slow down, read….
          “I asked you before to state what kind of deals you think need to be cut with the Democrats that haven’t already been cut by the Republican leadership. You didn’t answer me.”

          I tried to make my point….

          If Trump was all the things you think….the republican party would be behind him 100%

          Cutting deals with the democrats is the republican parties claim to fame.

          Either the republican party does not think Trump can makes deals….or…..The republican party thinks Trump will try and make deals the republican party does not like…
          ..free trade, jobs overseas, open borders, illegals
          Nabisco, Carrier, Ford, etc moving to Mexico

          I think the republican party wants to continue the Bush/Obama platform of making their donors and backers richer and richer at the expense of the middle class. I think both political parties are owned by very rich people…that make money on illegals, bank deals, free trade………….and both political parties are in it together…and we have been played

        • As I’ve indicated, I’m voting for Cruz. A vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary.

        • Try and think a little more.

          The R. Establishment is not against him because he wants to cut the same deals they do. They are against him because he goes even further than they do in supporting the Dems.

          If the R. Establishment wanted everything the Dems do, they’d just register as Dems.

          I’d say we have similar views on what’s going on in Washington, but you’ve got a very distorted view of what Trump is. I don’t have to speculate about what Trump will do, because what he’s told us is on the level of Pelosi, Reid, Obama … and worse.

        • Sorry for the incongruous italics. Not even sure how that happened.

        • omanuel says:

          We must be careful to avoid being deceived again by make-believe, TV play-acting quarrels between Democrats and Republicans that has accompanied each presidential election for the last seventy-years, while both parties worked together secretly to replace constitutional government by the people with a one-world government by the United Nations.

        • Latitude says:

          well You’re better than I am….I don’t even try to do it……italics!

        • I for one am not deceived about this, but I can tell you there’s a huge difference between Cruz and the rest of the current presidential candidates in both major parties. It seems that even many conservatives can’t see that difference today, so they’re having trouble seeing differences between Cruz and Rubio and between Cruz and Trump.

          Rubio and Trump are obviously working with the Dems to sell us out.

          If Cruz is, too (and I don’t claim he isn’t), it’s only as a hostage and not as a willing participant. BIG difference.

          Cruz may or may not be a friend of the little guy, but he is no friend of the Establishment. It astounds me how many people can’t see this.

        • Latitude says:

          OK, so we have three choices…
          Rubio…who I can’t stand, I think is a child, and goes to the highest bidder….and is polling at 16%
          Cruz…who we would all probably pick as our #1….but reminds everyone of grandpa Munster…..and is polling at 15%
          Trump…who would probably be no ones first choice…has totally wrecked both political parties (I’m not talking about the voters here, I’m talking about the Bush/Obama machine)…is over packing every event he has…and is polling right at 50%

          ….and then you have headlines like this

          Amid Trump surge, nearly 20,000 Mass. voters quit Democratic party

          “Nearly 20,000 Bay State Democrats have fled the party this winter, with thousands doing so to join the Republican ranks, according to the state’s top elections official. The primary reason? “The Trump phenomenon,”


        • Trump holds fewer events, and asks people to travel further to see him. Cruz is more of a retail campaigner, Trump is wholesale.

          Cruz could pack a few big fora, too, but he probably figures he gets more votes per buck by making it more personal. It’s a strategic decision.

          As for the Dems voting for Trump, of course, but once they learn his views on minorities, that will come down quite a bit in November. And besides, you’re not accounting for all the Republicans like me who see him as Mussolini and will never vote for him. How many are in this group? They’re not polling for that right now. And why not? Perhaps because the word’s come down from on high to avoid inhibiting Trump so he can sail to the nomination?

          It’s not in our interest to have a nominee who’s had the skids greased for him by both parties. And yes, the R’s have greased the skids for him, but only to keep his votes from going to Cruz. They’re aiming for a brokered convention, because they now can see that that’s the only way they can win this one.

          And in like fashion, the only way we can stop both parties this time, is to force the R’s to accept Cruz by delivering sufficient votes for him that they dare not challenge him at the convention. The choice we face couldn’t be starker, or more important.

        • Latitude says:

          Richard, you’re way wrong…it might be that your news is not covering it…Trump has had back to back almost every day events.
          All of them packed to capacity…record crowds

          I don’t know how you’re getting the republicans are greasing his wheels…unless that’s your news again….republican politicians have even said they would not vote for him or would vote for Hillary. Republicans are attacking him with everything they’ve got.

          I do agree they want a brokered convention…that’s the only way they can get their bought and paid for boy…Rubio..in there.

          See you later! it’s a time zone thing….

        • I read/watch/listen to all the news I can get my hands on, of any point of view.

          It is true that in the last two weeks I’ve had less time for it. I’m not saying Trump isn’t drawing more people to events than Cruz, but I think you’re underestimating the support Cruz has. Tomorrow’s news will reveal much more on this question.

          To me the most important thing is to defeat Trump, and ironically, Cruz and I share that goal with the Establishment. But we have different reasons for wanting to do so. The Establishment knows Trump is not going to blow up the system, but he also isn’t going to win, and he will do lasting damage to the Republicans’ ability to win future elections. His negatives are very high, and they will go much higher after the Dems really get rolling on him. It will be brutal, and historically so. This whole thing is a Democrat plan, and they’ve really got people blinkered about it. It may even turn out that a lot of those Democrat crossover votes are people who hate him but have been deployed under orders to vote for him to help Hillary get elected.

          In re time zones, I was kind of under the impression you were in Mountain time. I’m Eastern. But once I get started, I often stay up past my bedtime. See you later.

        • Oh yeah, please note I said the R’s are greasing the skids solely to keep those votes from going to Cruz. Otherwise they cant have a brokered convention. And it is a fact. I’m seeing lots of media outlets, both national and local, gushing about him even though they obviously don’t like him. And they’ve had a fatwa against giving fair reporting on Cruz, ever since before Iowa voted. Just tonight, Levin noted that Fox News is alternating between Rubio Day and Trump Day, but there is NEVER a Cruz day. Unless they’re attacking him and lying about him, he is The Candidate Whose Name Must Not Be Mentioned. I’ve never seen anything quite like it. And for me, it’s a reason not to support Trump. Because whenever you see that kind of skid-greasing, you know what you’re going to get with that person. More of the same.

        • omanuel says:

          I basically agree with Richard T. Fowler’s analysis.

      • Dave G says:

        Just like Reagan didn’t. LOL LOL LOL.
        Who wants to compete for jobs with Indians used to living in mud huts?

    • Republicans are not attacking Cruz …

      Latitude, I agree with your points about the Democratic Party and the Republican establishment when it comes to open borders and illegal immigration. I believe that if we don’t solve this fundamental problem we will destroy the country and in effect establish a permanent single party rule.

      When it comes to Cruz and your statement above, where have you been the last couple of years?

      Establishment Tribes Beat Drums against Ted Cruz



      ”You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”

      • Latitude says:

        Either I’m not wording this right….you guys haven’t really read everything I’ve said…something like that.

        Cruz is my first choice….I honestly believe he is a waste of time and can’t beat Hillary. He’s polling ~15%. Yes, the republicans are giving lip service to attacking Cruz….but get real, nothing like they are doing to attack Trump.
        If the republican party thought Cruz stood a chance in hell…they would be all over him. Even they don’t consider him a threat.
        Cruz pisses them off……Trump scares them to death

        • I’ve sat here and watched them switch their opposition to Trump on and off over a matter of hours. It’s very noticeable to me, both in television and in print. Perhaps because I have something of a background in MSM. It’s like they’re trying to control a car with a burnt-out clutch … herky-jerky, but nevertheless, getting them where they want to go. Slowly, but surely.

          Cruz, they’re being a bit more careful with, because he’s more fragile.. Remember, brokered convention … from their POV, they have to have BOTH of them survive long enough so that neither one can get a majority. So they want to be hard enough on Cruz that he doesn’t outrun Rubio, but not so hard that he bombs out before most of the votes have been cast. To us it might seem haphazard, but I assure you they’re having meetings about this, and war gaming it with computers. They have millions of dollars to spend on this, and if they waste it, there’ll be millions more where that came from. Their futures are on the line; they’re not going to just leave it to chance.

          Again, our only hope for overcoming their great advantages over us is to support Cruz in sufficient numbers that they dare not infringe the will of the voters.

        • Doug says:

          Cruz is my first choice….I honestly believe he is a waste of time and can’t beat Hillary. He’s polling ~15%
          Vote your conscience, not for who you think will win. I cannot understand the need to vote for someone because that person is currently in the lead. If Cruz is your first choice, vote for Cruz. Nothing else makes sense. You cannot control how others vote, and you are not a professional political analyst. Vote your conscience.

        • David A says:

          Doug, I tend to agree. In an additive line of thinking what if the criticisms against Trump, (and he did make all those leftist statements in a fairly recent past) end up being true.
          IMV the global system will collapse. IF this is true, I would prefer sooner then later, and I mean in the next several months. However my concern is that the statist politicians on the left who precipitated this crisis through unending promises, debt, political expediency, and lust for power, will be overjoyed if the system comes down on someone labeled a republican, who quite possibly is not. (The label will get the blame)

          Yet I think a principled conservative can actually guide us through such dark times far better, even if the MSM tries to blame that person for the past causes of destruction manifesting at that time.

          So I am conflicted, but will in the republican election always vote for who I consider to be the best candidate, and in the general election, again the same. If the nation will not elect someone bound to the principles of small government and individual responsibility and liberty on which this nation was found, then so be it, and the pain that is resulting is a necessary prod to memory of what we have lost.

        • Latitude says:

          I cannot understand the need to vote for someone because that person is currently in the lead
          then can you wrap your head around someone getting enough votes so Hillary doesn’t win?

    • Ernest Bush says:

      Cruz kept every promise he made to Texans as senator. He put a poison pill in the immigration bill Marco Rubio helped draft in the form of an amendment denying those who fall under the bill the right to vote. The Democrats would not support it as a result. He also filibustered to keep a promise even though some in his party blasted him for it.

      He is on the record for closing the border and proceeding to arrest and deport illegals. When asked in a Q and A how he would do that he had a clear and logical answer based on the grounds that they were breaking the law.

      • Dave G says:

        He also sponsored a 5X increase in H1B visas and didn’t filibuster this last Omnibus.

      • Has it occurred to anyone that These States re-exporting the communist income tax and pushing fanatical prohibitionist dictatorships overseas might be part of the reason so many foreigners are fleeing across the border to be nearer to the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments? Maybe we’ve exported the wrong stuff…

    • MrX says:

      LOL! Trump consistent on closing the borders? What planet are you on? Trump is more liberal than Pelosi. He loves single payer. He’ll open up the border large and wide. He’s said so point blank.

    • Doug says:

      This election has come down to one thing for me…

      For me, too. The Constitution.

      In the last debate, Trump talked about judges signing bills. ’nuff said.

  3. I admire Leonardo for vowing to sell all his cars and start riding horses, sell all his mansions and live in a house with no heat or air conditioning, sell his private jets and stop riding commercial airplanes because they produce CO2, and never use electricity again. Oh, he didn’t vow all that? He blamed CO2 production on the big evil corporations who produce everything he owns? It’s all their fault and we need to hit them with a carbon tax? Oh, I take it back. He’s just another total complete shithead

  4. gofer says:

    Cruz’s wife Heidi, was one of the authors and signatory to a CFR paper titled “Building a North American Community” with Canada and Mexico. Think Ted approves?

    • She co-authored the minority report, which opposed the deal as negotiated, and argued for a much less powerful organization. If you haven’t read the paragraph she contributed, you should.

      And no, for the record, I don’t think Ted approves, but I don’t know what’s in his heart. I do, however, know that Trump has slapped the name of the UN on one of his towers, which I might dare to speculate suggests he is a globalist in the sense of international “governance” (not just int’l trade deals). And he has also said that he supports additional int’l trade deals but that he’d do them “better”, which to me implies that he has no intention of getting rid of the North American free trade arrangements.

      • He really is in the classical mold of Mussolini. He’s got not only the blatant racism and social Darwinism, but also a penchant for internationalism and the love of Putin’s political style and tactics. And now he’s threatening that, if elected, he will move to silence media voices that he doesn’t like, even if he has to amend the First Amendment in order to do so. Why, Obama himself pales in comparison to that last one! How could any Republican voter even think of supporting that? Even Hillary, who would be a disaster for all of us, is not that bad.

        And compared to all that, your complaint about Heidi is quite odd. The notion that Ted Cruz is secretly supporting all the same future plans that Obama and Hillary are, based on little more than his wife’s CFR membership in the early 2000s, is simply baffling. I’m no friend of the CFR, don’t get me wrong. But come on, now.

        • Dave G says:

          President’s can’t amend the constitution.

        • Yeah. I obviously meant that he would try to get it done, by hook or by crook. He wouldn’t be the only in Washington who thinks that way.

        • Doug says:

          He really is in the classical mold of Mussolini.

          But people love him. This song comes to mind.

        • David A says:

          “blatant racism / he’s threatening that, if elected, he will move to silence media voices that he doesn’t like, even if he has to amend the First Amendment in order to do so.”
          Richard, links please. Thanks in advance.

        • David, I’d love to, but I’m under a very curious kind of fatwa here, and I don’t want to push my fortune. I’ll tell you what, I’ve got some things to do right now, but I’ll get the quotes put together and type them here within a couple hours, and I’ll give you the citations for them. –RT

        • Latitude says:

          he’s threatening that, if elected, he will move to silence media voices that he doesn’t like
          well no….no one likes it when the media makes things up and lies
          Trump didn’t say “media voices that he doesn’t like”…
          This is what he said….

          “I’m gonna open up our libel laws, so when they write purposely negative and horrible, false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money,”


        • I am still pressed for time, so the following will have to suffice for now. These are just the ones I remember off the top of my head. I’m sure there are many more examples, some of which he has probably deleted from his Twitter account.

          Now, the thing about the news media is not as Latitude has portrayed it. What Trump is actually talking about, without explicitly saying it, is the return of a variation on the Fairness Doctrine. That is a very bad thing, and a very Leftist thing. Trump was not talking about libel, which is already illegal and for which he can already sue if someone does it to him. The New York Times did not libel or lie about Trump, because if they had, Trump would have already sued them. What he is talking about is that if they print something that deliberately portrays him in a negative light, and is a statement of opinion under current law, but Trump considers it in his fevered brain to be a statement of fact, they should have to print a “correction” approved by him, or else. The quote that Latitude is quoting is the shorter version of what he said. When he was questioned about it, he specifically referred to the UK’s libel laws, under which truth is not a defense for printing something damaging about someone. That is a nightmare, and was a key issue in the colonial period and the early days of this republic. That issue was specifically why the First Amendment’s speech and press clause was so strongly worded. Furthermore, Trump had it pointed out to him that what he wanted would require amending the First Amendment, and his response was, well if that’s what it takes, then et cetera et cetera. Latitude conveniently leaves that Trump statement out of his analysis. Here’s a good lesson about this issue: Latitude’s omission paints me in the light of being either delusional or a liar. Under Trump’s preferred version of “libel law”, I could sue Latitude to get “lots of money” (Trump’s words) from him if he refused to print the specific retraction that I wanted him to print. So it’s a variation on the Fairness Doctrine, but with the added twist of the British view on libel
          (under which the actual truthfulness of the statement is not a defense).

          – Search Youtube for “Trump New York Times libel”, and you should find an abundance of video on this matter. Please remember that there are MULTIPLE quotes from Trump about this, and you have to put them together to get the whole picture.

          ON RACISM

          – “Laziness is a trait in Blacks.” He was sued over saying this in front of one of his Black employees, and lost.

          – His lying in court filings about whether he said the above statement indicates awareness that the statement is racist and/or unacceptable.

          – That the guys he wants doing his accounting are short guys wearing yarmulkes.

          – That he has hundreds of Chinese friends, and that they’re all tenants in his buildings. Reasonably, he must know that a landlord is not friends with a tenant just because they happen to be his tenant. If the question were his relationship with White people, he would know that it would be a ludicrous defense. But since the question is about Chinese people, he sees it as acceptable to palm off a ludicrous statement like this. It’s openly racist, and I think it’s more targeted at the racist community as a dog whistle, than at the rest of us. Consider that as a defense, it’s transparently ridiculous, but if it’s viewed as an attempt at caricature (i.e., look at this, they’re such fools that they even trust me, despite how badly I treat them), it actually kind of works.

          – Calling Rubio “little Marco” dozens of times. Including the statment “I call him little Marco.” Rubio appears to be a racial minority; my guess is he’s part Black, but whatever he is, it’s apparent he’s not of a similar racial background as Trump. And the “little Marco” comment is reminiscent of the racism against Latin American racial minorities that was rampant in the 1950s, for example with I Love Lucy.

          – “And some, I assume, are good people.” A statement for which Trump has (uncharacteristically) apologized. I assume you are aware of this statement and that no citation would be necessary.

          – When asked last Sunday if he disavows David Duke, he said “I don’t know who David Duke is.” Later, he claimed he had had a bad earpiece and that’s why he gave the response he did. The problem is that he repeated the name of David Duke, and so it is very clear that he understood the question. Since he had previously repudiated David Duke, the conclusion is unavoidable that his Sunday response was an attempt to dog whistle the Klan and other neo-Nazis, who he must already have known are big supporters of his. The problem with this is that the only reason he would want to do that is if he believes that he can’t win without their support … and to decide that he’s willing to court them if that’s what it takes to win IS racist.

          – In that same interview, he was told some other members of the Klan had supported him, and asked if he would say he does not want their votes. His response was



          – McCain comment — “I like people who didn’t get captured.”

          – Visual mockery of disabled reporter. Search Youtube.

          – That Cruz lies about everything. And why does he do this? “It’s very simple. Because he was born in Canada!” That quote is social Darwinism, albeit of a very strange variety.

          – Saying on camera that the Scottish people whose property he was seeking live like pigs. See the film on the Scottish incident for the details. The film shows just how they live. The statement is social Darwinism because it implies that if someone lives like a pig, then that justifies their property being handed over to someone who does not live like a pig, so they can make “better” use of it.

          – Retweeting the Mussolini quote, “It is better to live one day as a lion” etc.

          – When asked about retweeting the Mussolini quote on Meet The Press this past Sunday, Trump affirmed that he did know the quote was Mussolini at the time he retweeted and stated that there’s nothing wrong with retweeting a Mussolini quote if the quote is “interesting”. He then stated “I like interesting quotes”, which means that he likes that quote, even though he knows (and knew) that it was from Mussolini.

          So that’s the best I can do for now. If you have trouble finding any of these things, please let me know. Thanks. — RT

        • Ah, I see I have a truncated sentence there. It should have read:

          His response was that he’d have to look into it because he didn’t know who the people were, and that it would be unfair to disavow them if they were not bad. The host repeated “The Klan?” as though to ask if he would at least repudiate the Klan in general. He insisted he would have to look into them. He did not repudiate or criticize the Klan in any way. Bear in mind the context here, which is that David Duke had just stated that if White people did not vote for Trump, they were betraying their heritage. It was with that hanging in the air that Trump refused to denounce, criticize, or distance himself in any way from the Klan.

          Also, I just remembered that this particular exchange was not Meet the Press, but was on Fox News Sunday and the interviewer was Chris Wallace. Later on, Chuck Todd on Meet the Press asked him if he would state that he did not want the votes of White supremacists, and he sidestepped the question, which, given the context and the enormous sensitivity of this, is effectively saying “No, I won’t state that.”

        • Latitude says:

          not?….that’s exactly what he said

          “I’m gonna open up our libel laws, so when they write purposely negative (adjective) and horrible (adjective), false articles (noun), we can sue them and win lots of money,”

          …I do remember CBS and Dan Rather

          and I agree with Trump on this 100%….media makes up some lie…they should be responsible…false articles

        • The problem here is you’re choosing to quote the one version that’s not bad (and also irrelevant because it already exists in our laws) while ignoring the multiple quotes that I referenced which say exactly what I’ve said they do.

          If I have to quote I will, but not just for you, because you clearly don’t care about the truth of what Trump said about this. So unless you’re about to have an attack of honesty, you should probably just drop it. Trump’s statements about this matter are almost unimaginably abhorrent, and you definitely don’t want to be associated with them. Rush Limbaugh is ignoring them, because he knows that his signature issue since 1988 has been the Fairness Doctrine, the demise of which made his business possible, and the last thing he wants to do is go to the mat with Trump about this. So instead, he’s slowly starting to drift toward Cruz. He apparently can’t go all the way for fear of being the target of a scorched-Earth campaign by Trump. All of which should outrage and chill you. But will it? Based on your current comments, probably not.

        • Latitude says:

          what is it about the internet that makes people think they make their point by personal attacks?

    • annieoakley says:

      Yes I do think Ted approves.

  5. Robertv says:

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    Doesn’t sound that complicated.

    Who would be in favor to abolish the dictatorial Patriot Act ? Ted, Donald or Hillary ?

    • The libertarian candidate. I am hoping it will be Austin Petersen, not some recycled republocrat. “The case for voting libertarian” is that spoiler votes change laws and constitutions. It’s how the income tax moved from the commie manifesto of 1846 into the 16th Amendment. Rome, never forget, wasn’t destroyed in a day.

  6. I always vote for the Libertarian Party platform because this gives my vote 5X the law-changing clout. I have in my youth voted for Carter and Reagan (not their parties). I wish I could tell the difference between today’s GOP, the Ku-Klux and German National Socialism but they are simply too much alike in their declared platforms. Prohibitionism, superstition, looter confiscations, birth-forcing and xenophobic bombing crusades are not what I support.

  7. Tony, I doubt you have much time to look at the combined sequences of recent comments from various threads but does this pattern stand out to you as it does to me?


  8. Justa Joe says:

    How rich… A southern Demoncrat calling a guy from California by way of Illinois a Klan member.

  9. Andy Martin says:

    Fears of Trump as Fascist
    Echo Similar Warnings
    Against Ronald Reagan


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *