SearchSearch using pMachine
Never trust a computer you can't throw out a window - Steve Wozniak
Friday, July 31, 2009
Truth to power
I know the left loves to tell us all how the rich never pay their fair share, usually right before they tell us they plan to fleece them to increase government’s power and control of our lives under the guise of some do-good collectivist right or benefit, but the facts speak for themselves. The most popular leftists/statists line these days is how the rich, and especially that top 1%, don’t pay their fair share in taxes.
Yeah, the data ends in 2007 (who was president as this trend materialized BTW you libs), but my guess is that as the 2008 and 2009 numbers come out, the difference will be even bigger. There is a disproportionate tax burden here, but unlike what the progressives tell us every time they open their mouth to complain about evil America, capitalism, and Bush-Hitler, it isn’t the way they want us to think it goes. If the 95% lowest income people paid 39.5% of the taxes in 2007, that number is from the IRS itself BTW, that means that the remaining 5%, the evil rich the progressives blame for their lot and so long to soak even harder, already are paying 60% of the taxes collected by the IRS. My guess is progressives would not be happy until that number was around 95% though.
Cross posted at Wasting time with Alex
Posted by AlexinCT on 07/31/09 at 01:36 PM in Deep Thoughts Left Wing Idiocy Politics Law, & Economics The Press Machine • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink •
The Beer of Court Jesters
So Obama has his beer meeting with Officer Crowley and Professor Gates (and, in a very dangerous move, Joe Biden). I didn’t expect any racial problems to be solved, but looking over the reports I have to say: What. The. Hell.
I have to agree with Sullum. Crowley is the only one in the crowd with taste.
You will know a man by what he drinks. Our late-lamented Lee, for example, was a Jack Daniels man. ‘Nuf ‘ced.
Although I don’t drink very much, I tend to like a little bit of everything—I’m comfortable with Jack and I’m comfortable with Glenlivet; I can drink Guinness or I can drink Corona. I’m happy with a $10 bottle of Rosemont Shiraz and I’m happy with a $50 bottle of something French I can’t pronounce.
The one thing I won’t drink is lite beer. To quote Monty Python, I’d have sex in a canoe if I wanted something fucking close to water. Forget Marxist leanings or birther conspiracy theories. Do we really want one of “those”—lite-beer drinkers—in the White House?
This is a problem. Come on, Barack. I can respect your Veep for being a teetotaler (note to readers: this may be the last time I respect Joe Biden). I can ... understand ... the Bud Choice since it’s a harmless domestic choice that won’t offend anyone and is manufactured in a swing state.
But be a fucking man. What’s the worst that happens if you have a real beer? You pass out drunk, Biden takes over and gets us into a war with China, India and Russia at the same time. Is that worse than looking like a pussy on a national stage?
Anyway, an alcohol thread is a great way to kick off the weekend. Talk about any aspect of the blessed C2-H5-OH you want. But your first sentence should be what beer you would have with the President (remember the Secret Service will jump on you before you can throw it in his face). I personally would have had a Guinness, while I still have to scratch to afford beer.
And possibly a hip flask in case we got into policy.
Posted by Hal_10000 on 07/31/09 at 11:44 AM in Decline of Western Civilization • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink •
I Blame Bush
What a horrible economy! Unemployment is still rising. And last quarter, the economy continued to shrink at a 1% annual rate.
Whoops. Sorry. Obama is President. So that’s good news.
That last bit is the best news in the report. Americans should be saving. I’m no macro-economist but the emphasis to “spend spend spend!” seems ill-conceived to me. I hope the savings rate continues to go up, even after the economy has recovered. I’m living that idea myself. After selling my house in Texas and getting backpay for the wife, we had some cash left over. So we socked into savings rather than spend it. I know that’s selfish and greedy, but I’d rather have a safety cushion in case things get really hairy for the 10000 household.
Anyway, I’m sure this will be trumpeted in liberal quarters and downplayed in conservatives ones (as I just did). The thing is that there are reasons to be skeptical—reasons the libs would be trumpeting (and conservative downplaying) if McCain were President: the growth has been driven by stock market recovery and, perhaps, deficit spending; jobs are not rebounding; these are preliminary numbers very likely to be revised downward; even during the Great Depression, there were quarters that looked recovery-esque. That’s why even the most optimistic economists is not anticipating a real recovery until later in the year, at minimum.
More to the point, I don’t think we’ve retrenched out economic system for a long-term recovery. Regulations have not been changed, taxes have not been simplified and governments’ long-term fiscal outlook is worse than it was a year ago. That’s not a foundation to build on.
So, yeah, things are getting worse at a slower pace. But you’ll forgive me if I keep the champagne corked for the moment.
Posted by Hal_10000 on 07/31/09 at 08:57 AM in Politics Law, & Economics • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink •
It’s kind of disturbing how, just when you think Barney Frank has reached his nadir of stupid, he somehow sinks lower:
That last bit may be the only smart think Frank has ever said. There shouldn’t be legislation to help banks lend since every piece of legislation passed so far seems to make the situation worse.
The banks are trying to see if loans can be written down. But it takes time to sort out of the wheat from the chaff, to make sure you’re writing down the loan of someone who’s in real hardship rather than someone milking the system. And, of course, it bears pointing out that the purpose of banks is to make money, not to fulfill Barney Frank’s delusional fantasies about home ownership.
But that’s not enough for Frank. He wants foreclosures stopped now! Now now now now now!
Update: Of course, Barney Frank will be sure to guarantee that the hammer doesn’t fall on his banks. What a twerp. I especially like his defense that the bank should have been bailed out because Federal action hurt them. Gee, Barn. That’s something we could say about every fucking bank in America.
Update: Yet more ... honesty? ... from Frank, admitting that the public option is a trojan horse. But we already knew that.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Terrorists win again…
Oh, joy. Looks like we are helping the bad guys and making it easy for them to get us. WTF? Do these people really think this was some kind of moral victory or reversal of an injustice? Seriously, what are they thinking? Our constitution was not a suicide pact as far as I remember. Anyway:
So now the lawyers for the terrorists got Obama’s justice department – wonder if they will try to blame Bush for this too – to let their clients get together and plot their next moves huh? How great. Can’t wait for them to close Club Gitmo, bring the lot of these hardcore and brutal murderers to the US, stick them in prisons where their lawyers will make sure they get to not only talk, but actually recruit from the population, and then have these morons tell us it is not their fault that they perpetrated another mass murder attack on us.
Cross posted at Wasting time with Alex
Finally terrorism needs to be fought!
It seems that now that the left is in charge terrorism is no longer a scare tactic by the evil right to divert attention and whip up support for expansionist empire or war in general, but worthy of a “collective fight”. Collectivists admitting collective ideas aside, it is nice to see them finally join the rest of us that saw the threat from terrorism way back when. Yeah, I am being facetious and know damn well that the change of heart isn’t because they suddenly see the threat, but because now they are in charge and will be blamed if the terrorists kill people. I wonder if they pine for the days where all they did was just question everything, attribute it to evil motives, and undermine the people in charge, now that they are the ones responsible for preventing another attack. Then again, this is Janet Napolitano, and she could be talking about those evil right wing terror groups her people warned us about - the ones that are accused of racism and hate for the black guy in the WH, as well as people in general, all because they and not feel that bankrupting the US in order to recreate the USSR here is a good deal - the real terrorists that have told us repeatedly that they mean to convert or kill us all. Even Holder now admits we have home grown radicals, but doesn’t elaborate on that much. At least the left now finally is no longer promoting the usual bull and admitting terrorism is a real problem. I wonder why they only seem to care about our security and well being when they have power though. And I wonder if others notice that as well.
Cross posted at Wasting time with Alex
Posted by AlexinCT on 07/30/09 at 05:26 AM in Left Wing Idiocy War on Terror/Axis of Evil • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink •
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
I’ll Slice You
Thanks God for M&S pushing the UK crusade against knives to such an absurd extreme. My new job will require periodic trips to the UK and I’m in terror of being set upon by vicious gangs of British thugs wielding pizza cutters. If they knew what they were doing, they could turn the cutters to one side and beat me with them.
The Alternate Universe
John Hawkins has an interesting article about seven things that would be different if John McCain were President. For once, I agree with most of it. You really should read the whole thing but here’s his seven things:
1) Sonya Sotomayor wouldn’t be headed to the Supreme Court. He lets on that Souter might not have retired in this case. Personally, I think Sotomayor is about as good as we’re going to get from this Administration. And her approach to criminal law—she squashed an appeal for DNA testing because of a technicality—is a bit troubling.
2) A smaller, but still expensive stimulus bill. We’d probably have a little more emphasis on “tax cuts”, but I don’t think the stimulus would look much different, especially if the Dems got enough votes to over-ride a veto.
3) General Motors and Chrysler wouldn’t be government owned. Or union owned. No argument here.
4) Cap and Trade would be more likely to pass. Agreed. McCain was and is a big supporter of cap and trade in a particularly unpleasant form.
5) Say “hello” to amnesty. I’ll disagree here because Hawkins and I have different ideas of what constitutes “amnesty”. I don’t think paying a fine, back taxes and filling out reams of paperwork is exactly amnesty. The argument that illegals shouldn’t be allow to become legal is a legitimate one. But we might also be on the road to much-needed immigration reform.
6) Socialized medicine probably wouldn’t be on the agenda. This is probably the biggest reason to be sorry McCain didn’t win. But the growing opposition to healthcare reform—firm majorities of both conservatives and independents are opposed—gives me hope. We’re making progress on this issue, in spite of a lazy media.
7) You’d be talking Republicans down off of ledges today. Republicans are always on ledges. I’ve gotten a little tired of their drama queen theatrics.
I’d add seven things of my own:
The US would have immediately and stupidly jumped into the Iranian conflict. As much as people may criticize Obama for not condemning the crackdown fast enough, McCain wanted us to immediately pick sides, which would have been catastrophic for the resistance.
The US would not have sided with Zelaya in Honduras. Not that it has made a big difference in the situation. But I’m not sure McCain’s view of the world would have allowed him to convey he constitutional realities of the situation.
World opinion of us would be lower; the end result would be a wash. Foreign countries love Obama. I’m not sure it’s making a difference, since he antagonized them over their refusal to engage in Keynsian stimulus spending and global trade is declining at a scary rate. Grant, Russia is pissed at us right now (thank you, Joe Biden). But Russia is always pissed at us.
Sarah Palin would be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. This is the biggest reason to be grateful McCain lost. Not only would this ... person ... be close to real authority, neoconservative morons like Bill Kristol would be running amuck in the halls of power. Yes, we’d be further away from socialized medicine. But the hope of a resurgent sensible Republican Party would be shattered. Four years of McCain might buy us forty years of bullshit.
We Would Not Be Drawing Down Our Presence In Iraq. McCain was a very “stay the course” guy.
The birthers would all be liberal. They’d be telling us that McCain’s birth in the Pamama Canal Zone forbids him from being President. That, and that he “stole” the election.
Defense spending would be higher. I’m not convinced this is a good thing, necessarily.
Feel free to add your own points. But no points will be given for ignoring the Democratic Congress that would still be in place.
The above is mainly from a blog post I scrapped that was going to give a six-month report card on Obama. I scrapped the post because I realized that most of what I’m disliking about Obama is actually Congress. It was Congress that created the ugly stimulus bill. It was Congress that mutated cap and trade into ugly law (Obama, to his credit, supported an auction system. For all its faults, it would be far better than the political favor system Waxman creates). It is Congress that has written the healthcare bill (Obama isn’t even familiar with parts of it).
I’ve said before that I prefer a divided government. And on the whole, I’d rather have a Republican Congress and a Democratic President than the other way around. Think about that list. Almost all the positive stuff (staying out of Iran ... um ... better world opinion ... uh, somebody help me out here) would still be there but the bad stuff would be gone. A liberal President would force Congress to be conservative. Health care reform, for example, would be far more likely to break down the intrastate barriers to competition.
Forget McCain. Forget the White House. We’ve got midterm elections in just over a year. That’s the battle that could make the difference.
Posted by Hal_10000 on 07/29/09 at 06:25 AM in Politics Cult of Personality • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink •
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
I Dream of Rwanda
This is something so stupid it has to be seen to be believed:
Caveat time. This is from Newsbusters (Lee once described them as the turd swirling around the toilet bowl of journalism) and the clip cuts off very suddenly. It’s possible—in fact, very likely—that Robinson immediately noted that Rwanda is a basket case of a nation and not exactly an example of a great healthcare system. But I looked up the numbers from the ballyhooed WHO report that Michael Moore based his stupid movie on. It’s five years old but I doubt much has changed. Rwanda ranked 145th in responsiveness but 58th in the Fairness Index. So the care is shitty, but it’s not too unequal in its shittiness (the US ranks 54th in fairness, a key factor countering our off-the-charts ranking in responsiveness). Their overall ranking is 181st.
When even the WHO says your healthcare sucks, your healthcare sucks. I shouldn’t pick on something so stupid. No doubt if she had to say it over again, she’d pick a better example like ... um ... Cuba? Anyway, her answer is less important in the specifics than in the principle. The emphasis we are getting from the Left is entirely on insurance and having coverage. Forgets costs, forget quality, forget freedom. As long as we can get 300 million plastic cards into 300 millions wallets, that’s a noble achievement in and of itself, even if those cards are about as useful as credit card issued by Lehman Brothers.
But being insured is not the end-all be-all. People without insurance get care (and no, Joe Klein, it’s not all expensive emergency care and giving them coverage won’t save money—see Massachusetts, People’s Republic Of). People with bad insurance are denied care. Insurance is not some a magic wand that heals the sick and forces cancer into remission.
Just ask the people of Rwanda. Or even a first world nation with socialized medicine like ... um ... Robinson’s own country, which the WHO ranks 25th in responsiveness, just a hair above the UK (and way below the US) and has 41,000 people on waiting lists. And Ireland’s system is good by the standards of socialized systems.
As a palette cleanser, I’ll refer you to McArdle’s diatribe today that gets at the heart of why I oppose national healthcare.
You really should read the whole thing. There’s much more, such as the inevitability of lifestyle police and arrogance of power.
In the end, for all the remarks I make about efficiency and freedom, this is my biggest concern—that national healthcare will destroy innovation. Cheap Viagra will be paid for by future epidemics of antibiotic-resistant disease; our children will never see a cure for Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s because we insisted on affordable angioplasty; our grandchildren will never know what it’s like to live without pain because they government decides how much percocet you can take.
The defining motto of today’s politics is “Fuck the Future!” And national healthcare has become a distillation of every greedy, selfish, child-robbing, future-crippling instinct out there. From massive deficits to cost controls that will be somebody else’s responsibility to the destruction of pharma research, the entire debate is focused on benefitting today’s voters at the expense of tomorrow’s. From both sides.
Update: Check Mark_M’s comment, in which he notes that we have an insurance rate in this country that actually exceeds Rwanda’s.
Do what they tell you…
And so it begins. Here is a glimpse into the new healthcare system we are going to get. First they will come for those that smoke and they can call fat - watch for the obesity threshold to come down to near anorexic levels too - to get their “cost savings”. These people, which literally can translate to everyone as we all are potential smokers or obese people, will be treated as nothing less than lepers. Government will have harsh rules they must obey or they will be massively punished, first through excessive taxation, and eventually by being labeled as unclean. Many will nod in agreement as these people become second class. After all, these idiots brought it upon themselves. If they could just leave the smokes and the food alone, then there would be no problem. Then they will find new categories of sub people. The elderly, the mentally challenged, the wrong religion or ideology, the wrong race. See this is not new. It has happened before. Back in the 1930s there was an entire culture based on the uber mensh, and those that did not meet the uber mensh standard, were treated as cattle. In fact, they even created a hated class they could blame all the problems on, and then actively pursued their extermination. Have no doubt that we have elite fascists in charge right now, and that when they talk “hope & change”, that this is where the whole thing is going to lead us. I am sure one could invoke the Godwin law if one didn’t want to actually have to debate the fact that once government owns healthcare it no longer will be a right unless you are one of the chosen.
Cross posted at Wasting time with Alex
Posted by AlexinCT on 07/28/09 at 05:12 AM in Health Care Left Wing Idiocy • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink •
Monday, July 27, 2009
Missing the Forest for the Fire
So ... the solution is to give one insurer 100% of the market? To allow the same oligarchy that controls state insurance laws to control federal insurance laws? Only someone as glib as Ezra would use monopsony abuses to argue for a monopsony.
Actually, I’m being unfair. Klein actually uses this to argue for “managed competition” where the Feds control insurance exchanges. But that’s almost as bad. Gee, Ezra, who do you think is going to wield authority over that managed competition? Monied interests or average joes? I’ll wait while you think about it.
Maybe the solution is to break those local monopolies by allowing insurers to compete across state lines. That would bring federal anti-trust law to guarantee that no player build up a controlling interest in healthcare. That would force insurers to expand their networks. That would allow individual doctors and hospital to belong to hundred of networks and have access to more patients.
“Managed competition” is an oxymoron. In a free market, competition manages itself. That’s the whole point of competition.
If You’ve Ever Stored Sodium…
... you just might be a criminal. Brian Walsh has just a little look at how the Feds have set up a tripwire maze of laws so dense that they can basically find something to convict you of if they don’t like you. Here’s a story that is not atypical. I’ll quote the whole thing
He spent two years in prison. Notice that there is something legitimate here—sodium is dangerous and the package should have been properly labelled. But SWAT teams? Intrusive searches? And then an almost comical fumbling for something anything to convict this guy of to justify the effort?
Now imagine what’s going to happen when the Feds control health care and energy production. Imagine especially what’s going to happen when the gang of bullies currently occupying the White House (see my note below on the attempts to silence the CBO) are in control of health care and energy production.
The true idiocy of conversations like the Maddow-Edwards chat Contrarian links below is that they fail to see any downside to increasing federal involvement with society. It’s all good to them. It’s so good that it can’t even be questioned. The only reason we’ve waited 61 years is because of evil special interests (as opposed to the good special interests, like Walmart, that support the bill).
Any government expansion is good—if you’re rich or famous or powerful or connected like Maddow and Edwards are. The rest of schlubs are going to end up like Krister Evertson --- surrounded by federal laws, at the mercy of federal agents and powerless to so much as get a boil lanced in our own country without permission.
Don’t think so? I remind you that Hillarycare would have punished doctors and patients for getting unauthorized care. I refer you to this list of power-grabbing provisions in the healthcare bill. Even if we assume half of what he claims is bullshit, that still leaves many intrusive provisions that will have to be enforced by federal agents.
Government is force. It is not persuasion, it is force. The more you mandate, the more you authorize federal agents to enforce, to arrest, to fine, to jail. And the more tools you put into the hands of federal agents to go after someone because they don’t like that look on his face.
Posted by Hal_10000 on 07/27/09 at 07:01 AM in Politics Law, & Economics • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink •
Gotta know your enemy
I’m confused about this whole healthcare debate.
What are the arguments of the proponents of a public plan?
It seems to depend on who you ask. On the one hand you have Obama and his crew arguing that reform will help reduce costs and increase efficiency, notions that the CBO has thoroughly stomped into submission. On the other hand you have liberal commentators like Rachel Maddow taking a more moralistic approach.
The tone of the discussion is interesting. The need for a healthcare system that we can “be proud of” and is no longer “immoral,” - all of it adds to my suspicion (a suspicion that many liberals will deny) that this whole reform movement is really just another massive welfare project. It isn’t about improving quality and controlling costs, but about helping the poor and the uninsured by fleecing tax payers and compelling coverage. What I also notice, not just from Maddow, is the lack of substantive arguments in favor of the actual proposals offered by Obama and the democrats in congress. After stomaching several of her and other commentator videos on youtube, the pattern I have seen is that instead the left wants to focus on why republicans and conservatives are fighting reform. They prefer to make insinuations about the motives of the opposition and paint them one way or another rather than elucidate on the rightness of their own ideas.
Notice how important it is to Elizabeth Edwards to tell Americans to tune out critics who mention Canada, Britain, or the word socialism, three terms that have a great deal of bearing on the current debate. Just as Lowry’s quote from my last post pointed out, this debate has much broader implications than simply what sort of healthcare system we adopt. Rather it is a political battle about the fundamental role of government. Once we allow that it is government’s place to dictate healthcare standards and practices for all Americans, there will be little else we can argue that the government ought not do. In comparison to the quest to win such a crucial issue as that, the debate over policy details is almost irrelevant; it’s small potatoes compared to the Pandora’s box that will be unleashed if Obama gets his way.
Much of the left already knows this and is going to great pains to make sure the American public does not catch on, swamping the public discussion with phrases like “necessary reforms” to make the issue seem less consequential than it is. We cannot let them get away with this. Rather than being just a political fight (which we may lose with the democrats in power) the American people need to be reminded of the exact nature of what nationalized healthcare means, all that is at stake, and what they stand to lose.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
You Will Be A Team Player
Boy, it’s got to suck to be at 1600 Pennsylvania these days. They’ve got the One in office. They have both houses of Congress. They have a Dream Team of a cabinet. They have the biggest fiscal crisis in 75 years. And they still can’t get what they want, at least partially because all these stupid sexy facts and objective analyses keep ripping their glorious proposals to shreds. What to do about it? Shoot the messenger:
This is highly unusual. The CBO and OMB do not criticize each other. They can have differences of opinion, but each respects the independence of the other. Now you combine this with Obama’s unusual meeting with the head of the CBO last week and you get a picture of someone crossing Constitutional boundaries to try to intimidate ... not even his opponents ... to intimidate his accountants.
It’s not an isolated incident. Last week, Neil Barofsky, the man overseeing TARP complained about the lack of transparency and noted the potential liability of $24 trillion. Take it away, Greenwald:
When Obama was first elected, I held out some hope that his Administration wouldn’t be a complete clusterfuck on the domestic side. The reason I did was because of Obama’s emphasis on transparency and his record, as a senator, of showing an interest in the opinions of his opponents. He’d sponsored numerous bills increasing government transparency; he had appointed conservative economists like Austin Goolsbee to his staff; many conservative U-Chicago economists talked about his intellectual curiosity as did conservative legal analysts. I knew he was going to be liberal but at least I could hope he might not be completely closed-minded.
But now he’s discovered that he can’t do everything he wants because of a wave of “change”. Now he’s discovered that not only do his opponents have opinions, they’ll voice them. Now he’s discovered that the government is filled with checks and balances—agencies specifically designed to limit his power and counter his statements. This can not be tolerated. Transparency is all find and good when it nails corrupt Republicans. But when it calls the Democrats out for pulling budget numbers out of their asses and having zero accountability for trillions of dollars in spending ... well, it’s time for a little trip to Principal Obama’s office. Cut yourself a switch before you come in.
Update: This is not the first time Orszag has shown a contempt for the process of government. It was Orszag, you remember, who said the Democrats should use the reconciliation process to bypass the filibuster.
Posted by Hal_10000 on 07/26/09 at 01:18 PM in Politics Law, & Economics • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink •
Six months and setting a new record….
The GOP should demand that the MSM give Obama hour long, weekly, or better yet, bi-weekly air time, so he can talk to the people some more. I know the left loves to call conservatives idiots, cowboys, and red necks, and to pretend that their side is replete with intellectuals, but I think the American people are much smarter than they give em credit and more and more of them are starting to see that Obama is nothing but an incompetent collectivist boob. The usual losers in the MSM did an awesome job snowing people and covering for Obama before the election. The best counter for their continued efforts to protect this guy is to actually let this guy talk. He makes Bush, even in his most weakest moments, look like Plato or Socrates compared to him.
Basically it looks like the well orchestrated and carefully crafted person for Obama - the one where he is an intellectual giant and uniter, of Ronald Reagan like caliber, and beyond the racist and collectivist policies that have always dragged this country down – goes up in flames when he actually gets to talk. Many of those house-fraus that voted for Obama, to prove how chick they were for electing a black man, are now realizing that this guy is just another Jackson or Sharpton, with a large contingent of fanatical media people covering up for him.
A few more pressers like this, and Obama will be left with nothing but the fanatical collectivist lemmings following him. I say give him as much TV time as he wants. If he rigs the audiences as he is want to, hammer him on that. More likely, even with a rigged audience and planted questions, my bet is that he will continue to pull stunts like the last one, and as he is exposed for all to see – unmasked as a collectivist ideologue with zero real life experience, and hell bent on destroying this great nation – will lose support fast.
Oh yeah. For the usual libs: it’s BOOSH’ fault. There. Now you don’t even have to coment.
Posted by AlexinCT on 07/26/09 at 11:14 AM in Left Wing Idiocy Polls and Surveys The Press Machine • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink •
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 27587
Links and Info
The ACLU and Terry Jones
Most recent entries
This page has been viewed 42173588 times