Home
 

Archive October 2009

All of the articles archived for the month that you have specified are displayed below.

Valerie Jarrett: Lapping for Action

By Carter Clews

Who is Valerie Jarrett? It’s a question gaining increasing interest in the conservative blogosphere. And even some members of the mainstream media are starting to take a second look at this woman who has earned the sobriquet “Obama’s eminence gris.”

Indeed, in the Obama household, Valerie Jarrett is considered nothing less than a member of the family. Asked about his unique relationship with the shadowy Ms. Jarrett, Obama told the London Independent’s Robert Draper, “Well, Valerie is one of my oldest friends. Over time, I think our relationship evolved to the point where she’s like a sibling to me … I trust her completely.’

Added Michelle to the Chicago Tribune’s Jodi Kantor, “She’s always one of the people he and I talk to when we’re about to make a move.”

So, who is this pseudo sister, this Obama alter-ego, this sounding board with sign-off stature who has become the power behind the Obama throne?

Simply put: Valerie Jarrett is a radical leftist with a rapacious appetite for power and wealth. In Richard Daley’s Chicago, she was the turn-to person for flexing muscles, padding pockets, and covering tracks. In Barack Obama’s Washington, she is the single advisor most responsible for both for originating and orchestrating his most brazen attempts to impose what many see as a socialist regime upon the American people.

Policy decisions and key appointments, brickbats and bouquets, the mendicants and the mercenary – they all come through Valerie Jarrett’s office.

As the New York Times recently wrote: “Jarrett is also the president's closest friend in the White House, and it is not lost on her colleagues that when senior staff meetings in the Oval Office break up, she often stays behind with the boss.”

American Spectator offered an idea of what transpires at those intimate tête-à-têtes:

“Jarrett's office isn't just about hiring anti-American presidential senior staff or inviting them to posh official dinners at the White House, though. Jarrett's office, according to White House sources, was influential in advocating for the creation of a "chief diversity officer" (CDO) at the Federal Communications Commission, as well as numerous other senior positions on regulatory and advisory commissions within the federal government bureaucracy.”

Among her colleagues and fellow travelers Jarrett has stuck in top White House senior positions:

  • Van Jones – the former Obama Green Czar, a self-avowed communist who believes that the United States engineered the attacks on the World Trade Centers. Of him, Jarrett enthused, “We were so delighted to be able to recruit him into the White House. We were watching him…for as long as he’s been active out in Oakland…and all of the creative ideas he has…and now we’ve captured that…and we all that energy in the White House.”
  • Cass Sunstein – the Obama Regulation Czar who believes that farm animals should be able to sue their owners and that traditional marriage should be abolished.
  • Kevin Jennings – the Obama Safe Schools Czar who believes that elementary school children should be taught that homosexuality is normal behavior (along with the techniques for “enjoying” it) and who in 1990, as a teacher in Massachusetts, founded the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN.

But to get the full flavor of Valerie Jarrett’s august substance and cunning style, one has to go back to Chicago, to the seamy backrooms of Richard Daley’s unholy empire. There, Valerie Jarrett established a stern reputation as the no-nonsense progenitor of pay-to-play run amuck; as the very embodiment of what celebrated columnist Mike Royko suggested as the Windy City’s slogan: Ubi Est Mea? – “Where’s Mine?”

In 1995, while serving as Executive Vice President of Habitat (more about that later), the ineffable Ms. Jarrett was also appointed by her good friend and guru Mayor Daly to chair the board of the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA). There, under his direction, she approved two multi-million dollar property sales.

One parcel was sold to the city for the princely sum of $3.29 million. In an unusual move, the
Board agreed to accept payments from the city through 2013 with a 5% interest rate. This transaction was a bit unorthodox in that normally a lump sum payment would be made.

Within a remarkably short period of time – and despite the long-term payments due -- the city then sold the land to a certain Mr. Michael Marchese. Perhaps not so coincidentally, Mr. Marchese, like Ms. Jarrett, was a close friend and frequent traveling companion of Mayor Daley. Marchese’s price: $1. In total.

Defending the unusual transaction, Ms. Jarrett commended the Mayor on his shrewd deal, telling the press, “It’s been an enormous challenge to get anyone to step up.” Even at one-3.29 millionth of the city’s Jarrett-negotiated purchase price?

And that was just the beginning. The Jarrett-Daley-Marchese juggernaut was just picking up steam. The second multi-million-dollar deal Ms. Jarrett helped negotiate for the triad involved the sell another CTA property, this one to Limits LLC for $14.35 million. Predictably, the Mayor’s friend Marchese’s Harlem-Irving Companies was a part of Limits LLC.

What makes this transaction particularly fascinating is that in accepting the $14 million bid, Ms. Jarrett’s CTA rejected a rival offer of $20 million. And it is more than fair to ask what hand she had in drafting the request for proposals for the property, including the following statement: “CTA reserves the right to make an award based on the greatest benefit to the CTA and the community and not necessarily on the highest amount proposed to be paid to the CTA.”

It is also fair to ask what Ms. Jarrett, the Mayor, and Mr. Marchese considered “the greatest benefit to the CTA and the [cash-strapped] community,” if not $6 million in cold, hard cash.

And that brings us to what is, perhaps, the set piece of the Valerie Jarrett’s Chicago bucket shop: the Habitat Company. As mentioned, Ms. Jarrett served as the Executive Vice President of that company while also serving at the Mayor’s pleasure as the chair of the Chicago Transit Authority, shortly after leaving her powerful positions as the Mayor’s Chief of Staff and the director of the Mayor’s Department of Planning and Development.

The Habitat Company, it should be noted, is a property management company that had been appointed by Chicago’s courts to oversee the construction of all public housing in the city. In short, hundreds of millions of dollars were funneled by the city into Ms. Jarrett’s company.

And how did Valerie Jarrett handle that responsibility – and the attendant largess? Well, here’s one fairly typical example.

In the year 2000, Ms. Jarrett’s Habitat Company helped implement the lofty-sounding “Plan for Transformation” that would replace existing public around Chicago’s United Center. As of July of last year, according to the Chicago Tribune, “the city had lost more than 13,000 housing units for the poor at a time when low-income families face one of the worse housing crises in recent history. After years of neglect and abandonment, many residents doubt that Jarrett and CHA officials have their interests at heart.”

Meanwhile, “Habitat has earned $6.8 million in fees and $10.8 million in administrative expenses since the plan started in 2000, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ….” And all the while, Valerie Jarrett lived very comfortably, thank you, at her lakefront apartment, pulling in a six-figure base salary – in addition to her hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation for serving on boards.

Carl Sandberg once described Chicago as “The Hog Butcher of the World … Fierce as a dog with tongue lapping for action, cunning as a savage pitted against the wilderness.” Having conquered that piker’s paradise, Valerie Jarrett has now moved on to the Pork Capital of the Universe, fiercely “lapping for action,” cunning as ever in a wilderness long-since shorn of even the barest vestige of basic integrity, or the sheerest dictates of common decency.

And Barack Obama trusts her completely.

Carter Clews is the Executive Editor of ALG News.

They Opted Out

ALG Editor's Note: William Warren's award-winning cartoons published at GetLiberty.org are a free service of ALG News Bureau. They may be reused and redistributed free of charge.

Lisa Heinzerling: Bringing Good Things to Death

by Victor Morawski

Are their cases of environmental pollution that are so egregious that the polluters should be punished as murderers?

Absolutely, says Obama EPA Administrator Lisa Heinzerling. And she is willing to wipe out half of the world’s population to prove her point. Given her way, she would turn into murderers every manufacturer in America who had any inkling of an idea ahead of time that their actions had even the remotest statistical chance of causing a pollution-related death. And she is determined to give her view the force of law.

For example, she strongly opposes allowing any cost-benefit analyses into the evaluation of environmental risk because, for her, doing so amounts to “a pre-killing weighing of the choice to kill.” In such analyses, “economic costs of pollution-reducing strategies are balanced against the value” in dollars of those whom they will kill. Such deliberation for her, “makes the killing worse, not better, from a legal and moral perspective.”

To make her point, she uses an example of an imaginary reality TV show where, every week, some unlucky contestant is not only voted off the show but is executed. She claims that we would not allow this killing even if the show were a huge monetary success. And neither should we allow companies, on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis, to “set themselves on a course of conduct that they know will result in human death.”

Her analogy is flawed for a number of reasons. On the show, we know that someone will be killed by our actions. In the real world, what is actually known by a company when it decides not to install the expensive new scrubbers is simply that it may result in the death of one extra person per million. Or, of course, it may not.

Any time I put the key in the ignition and drive away I realize that there is some real statistical probability greater than zero that my actions will result in the death of an innocent person. Even if I am obeying all laws, a child who is not paying attention to traffic may rush out in front of my car. In these types of cases, motorists are often absolved both legally and morally of any wrongdoing.

But, wait a minute, I did know when I left the house that morning that there was some remote statistical chance that my actions might result in someone else’s death, and yet I drove away in spite of this. By Lisa Heinzerling’s unorthodox reasoning, I would instead be guilty of murder.

Another disingenuous feature of her reality show analogy is that while, in the show, we specifically set out to kill someone, in the real world corporations are normally not out to harm, much less kill. Her response to this is that unintentionally causing a death in pursuit of some other end — like profit — is still a “knowing killing.” And she full well acknowledges that this extreme view “makes killers out of the people who produce the things—electricity, oil, chemicals—that bring good things to life.”

And so, if, in the final analysis, we end up destroying the very commodities that “bring good things to life” – and, in fact, save millions of lives a year – well, to Ms Heinzerling’s way of thinking, that’s just too bad. In short, she is absolutely determined to save individual lives – even if she has to wipe out mankind to do it.

But to the medieval philosophers who first formulated views of just conduct in war, it was all-important that a good end was aimed at—this was what morally justified any killings of non-combatants that came about as the result of collateral damage. One was not targeting them. One was aiming at the good end of targeting combatants in a just war. Heinzerling seems utterly unable to appreciate this crucial distinction.

Victor Morawski, professor at Coppin State University, is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

The Overnights: The ALG New Media Operation


The Overnights: The ALG New Media Operation

By Adam Bitely

At Americans for Limited Government, we are running a very extensive New Media operation. From blogging to aggregating, we are up to our ears in work.

On a daily basis, we are aggregating the center-right blogosphere. At NetRight Nation, we are aggregating content from over 75,000 blogs daily! On top of that, we are working with bloggers across the country to help spread the message of free-markets and individual liberty.

We realize the power that New Media has in affecting change in America. That’s why I launched StopJarrett.com this week to ask the questions that many in the old media are refusing to ask. We want to know who Valerie Jarrett is. And we are working in the blogosphere to find out and report the truth to everyone.

Blog powerhouses like Michelle Malkin have already backed out efforts to expose Valerie Jarrett. And in our second day, we already have an extensive blog coalition being built to help us pull this project off.

If you are a blogger and would like to get involved in our efforts, please email me at Adam@getliberty.org and I will be more than happy to work with you.

Adam Bitely is the Director of New Media at Americans for Limited Government and Executive Director of NetRight Nation.

Too Hot Not To Note: StopJarrett.com


ALG Editor’s Note: In the following featured commentary from Michelle Malkin’s website, she featured Americans for Limited Government’s new project to stop Valerie Jarrett.

StopJarrett.com

By Michelle Malkin • October 29, 2009 02:00 PM

There’s a new website dedicated to exposing White House senior adviser/Chicago consigliere/real estate mogul Valerie Jarrett.

Call her out.

Policing Obama’s culture of corruption takes eternal vigilance.

Editorial: Stay at Home, Mr. Obama

On November 9, 2009, thoughtful leaders from throughout the world will gather in Germany to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The will celebrate the end of the Cold War and the victory of liberty over tyranny. And they will honor the memories of the millions who perished under the brutal yoke of communist oppression.

For nearly 30 long and painful years, the Berlin Wall served as Marxism’s monument to its own barbarity. Like a jagged scar across the face of Europe, it reminded all that communism and freedom are diametrically opposed. That those who would embrace the latter must consistently oppose the former.

From John Kennedy’s “Ich bin ein Berliner,” to Ronald Reagan’s “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” the words and deeds of Americans and their allies relentlessly chipped away at this obscene symbol of oppression. And they paved the way to a unified Germany, the liberation of the Captive Nations from the stranglehold of Soviet-style Marxism, and the freeing of the world from the fears and tears of 70 years of Soviet aggression.

So, the collapse of the Berlin Wall is truly a landmark moment worth celebrating – by most. And international leaders ranging from Lech Walesa, Angela Merkel, Gordon Brown, and even Kofi Anan will be attending the festivities and honoring the legacy.

One well-known dignitary, however, will be conspicuous by his absence. That dignitary is U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama.

And free peoples the world over have a right to ask why.

After all, he was more than happy to journey to Berlin during his campaign to bask in the applause of adoring crowds as he declared himself a “citizen of the world.” He was eager to take his entourage to Copenhagen to personally peddle the ill-fated Olympics. And, naturally, he’ll be jetting off to Oslo in December to accept his Nobel Prize amid accolades aplenty.

But, a trip to Berlin on the historic anniversary of fall of the “Evil Empire” simply did not fit into Barack Obama’s schedule. And the thought of a U.S. President churlishly disdaining such a momentous occasion is as unconscionable as it is unfathomable – unless, of course, one considers the source.

Barack Obama was born into a tradition of Marxism and deliberately immersed himself in its rabid ideology. As he reveals in his own self-idealizing autobiography, Dreams From My Father, he intentionally patterned himself after a father who was a zealous Marxist , one who, perhaps not so coincidentally, believed in redistributing the wealth by taxing personal income at 100%.

As Obama wrote:

“It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, Dubois and Mandela.”

Even in his earliest, most impressionable, years, Obama sought out the counsel of strident Marxists to help shape his thoughts and deeds. Again in his own autobiography, he identifies Franklin Marshall Davis -- a member of the Communist Party and a Soviet sympathizer -- as his childhood father figure, a male role model and mentor whose thoughts he eagerly assimilated.

Here’s an example of Mr. Davis’ thoughts -- this from his blood-curdling ode “To the Red Army”:

Smash on, victory-eating Red warriors!
Bears today the golden fruit of victory!
Drive on, oh mighty people's juggernaut

Entering politics, Obama turned to one Alice Palmer to be his personal guide and political guru. Ms. Palmer, a disgruntled member of the Illinois State Senate, took great pride in assailing the United States from her perch as a contributor to the People’s Weekly World, a house organ for the Communist Party, USA. In fact, she was a correspondent for the People’s World Weekly from the 27th Congress of the Communist Party in Moscow.

When not learning at the knee of Alice Palmer, Obama was hobnobbing with “some guy in my neighborhood” named Bill Ayers, and of course, Mr. Ayers wife, the lovely Bernadine Dohrn, infamous for her celebration of the Tate-LoBianca massacre. It was, in fact, the self-proclaimed communist Ayers who helped launch Obama’s political career at a cocktail party in the Ayers-Dohrn Hyde Park mansion (some Marxists are apparently more equal than others).

And all the while, Obama was seeking out the counsel of the man he has described as his “spiritual mentor”: Rev. Jeremiah Wright. That’s the same Jeremiah Wright who applauded the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centers, bellowing, “G*d damn America!” The same Jeremiah Wright who each and every Sunday trumpeted from his pulpit the dangerously divisive Marxist Liberation Theology – while Barack Obama contributed more than $20,000 to keep the dogma frothing forth.

But, one not need judge Obama merely by the decidedly Marxist company he has historically chosen to keep. His actions and appointments since coming to office resoundingly declare his affinities as well.

On the domestic front, by nationalizing the automobile, banking, health, and mortgage industries, or dictating compensation for private sector CEOs, Barack Obama is doing all in his power to prove his Marxist mettle and make his mentors proud.

And on the foreign front, his warm embrace of Marxist dictator Hugo Chavez, his outreach to Fidel and Raul Castro, and his angry insistence that the people of Honduras reinstate impeached Marxist despot Manuel Zelaya have firmed up Obama’s credentials as a man who at best underestimates the horror of communist hegemony.

That said, it is really no wonder that Barack Obama has precious little appetite for participating in the festivities celebrating the legacy of November 9, 1989. For him, it is quite simply not worth commemorating something as nebulous as the fall of Marxism and the Soviet Union.

He does not recognize the horror of their ways. He does not appreciate the sacrifice of those who fought and died to toss off their brutal yoke. By precept and practice, his own personal mindset and political agenda gainsay those who celebrate their fall.

So, in the final analysis, it is probably better that Barack Obama simply stay at home on November 9. In the name of all that is good and decent, he should let those who actually fought the fight celebrate the victory.

Dithering Heights

ALG Editor's Note: William Warren's award-winning cartoons published at GetLiberty.org are a free service of ALG News Bureau. They may be reused and redistributed free of charge.

Pelositown: Go ahead, drink the Kool-Aid!

By Robert Romano

It’s looking more and more like a political suicide cult.

This week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is expected to drop the latest version of ObamaCare containing the so-called “public option” in the House of Representatives. And she has a simple message for members of her caucus who may seem reluctant to join her in voting for the government takeover of the nation’s entire health system: “Go ahead, drink the Kool-aid!”

Only there might be some expected side effects: namely, outraging their constituents and being shown the boot in the 2010 election cycle. In fact, several members seem intent on escaping Pelositown before the “revolutionary suicide” ceremony commences on the House floor.

Not that Pelosi cares. Apparently, these members are expendable—despite the fact that they now number in the mid-50’s.

According to the Washington Post’s Plum Line blog by Greg Sargent, the “public option” is well short of the 218 votes needed to pass. Sargent obtained a preliminary whip count, drafted by Congressman James Clyburn’s office, which shows “that 47 House Dems are committed No votes, and eight are Leaning No, for a total of 55. That means of 256 House Dems, just under 200 remain, and a dozen of those are listed as undecided. The bill needs 218 votes for passage.”

Sargent’s publication followed a long Tuesday for “public option” supporters that saw Senators Joe Lieberman and Olympia Snowe come out against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s own bill.

The historic efforts of millions of Americans spontaneously speaking out at town halls, tea parties, and calling their representatives, writing letters, and visiting congressional district offices has made an undeniable impression on the members of Congress. So far, dozens of Democrats members are saying “No” to the Pelositown chug-a-thon.

Apparently, the tell-tale whip count was leaked by so-called “progressive” members of the House who blame the White House and Congressional leadership for the poor showing among moderate and Blue Dog members in favor of the health care takeover.

According to Sargent, “House progressives argue that the document should light a fire under Dem leaders. One House progressive tells me he’s convinced that most of the undecideds, and a number of the No votes, can be won over with the right mix of pressure and incentives — which only the House leadership and the White House can provide.”

In other words, in Pelositown, the “progressives” want strong-arm enforcers to coerce members to forget about their future, ignore their constituents, and drink a toast to their own demise. After all, attempts to frighten and intimidate the American people into keeping quiet have miserably failed.

They were called liars, “un-American,” “Brown Shirts,” “political terrorists,” “evil mongers,” and “uncivilized” by the very people now turning their ire on recalcitrant House members. In short, they were dubbed enemies of the state for their “impudence” in daring to oppose Barack Obama’s utopian plans to “transform” America.

But they would not cease their protests. It turns out that the American people really do not want government bureaucrats getting between them and their doctors. That they know the takeover will lead to health costs skyrocketing. That they recognize it will break the public treasury, and its unaffordability will lead to rationing. That they will eventually be forced into the plan. And that Medicare will be cut and taxes hiked drastically to pay for it.

According to Rasmussen Reports, 57 percent of voters nationwide believe it will raise the cost of health care, and 53 percent believe the quality of care will get worse. And 63 percent “are strongly opposed to a public option if they think it could lead employers to drop the existing coverage they provide employees.”

A full 51 percent are opposed to the plan. And according to a recent FOX News poll, Independents, a critical voting bloc in swing congressional districts, oppose ObamaCare by 62 percent to 23 percent.

All of which leaves members of the House with a choice. To escape Pelositown and actually represent their constituents—before it is too late.

Or, to vote for the increasingly unpopular “public option” and join the ranks of former congressmen who went too far to the Left in moderate-to-conservative districts. In short, to drink the Pelosi Kool-Aid and look forward to lots of basket bingo and blue plate specials.

Robert Romano is the ALG Senior News Editor.

Too Hot Not To Note: Sen. Tom Coburn On Health Care Reform


ALG Editor’s Note: In the following featured video from the Washington News Observer, Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma discusses the current status of health care reform.

Sen. Tom Coburn On Health Care Reform

 

Public Option Titanic Strikes Iceberg, Fleeing Senators Take to the Lifeboats

By Robert Romano

The unsinkable ship of ObamaCare—expected into port as long ago as last July—has hit an iceberg. And it now appears that there are few, if any, airtight compartments left to help it stay afloat as it flounders gracelessly on the cresting waves of public opinion.

Just a day after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that the Senate version of ObamaCare would contain the costly so-called “public option,” the embattled Democrat suffered several key defections against the plan.

The first Senator to head for the lifeboats was Joe Lieberman (ID-CT), who promised to join Republicans in filibustering the “public option.” He said he would vote against the bill “even with an opt-out because it still creates a whole new government entitlement program for which taxpayers will be on the line.”

Lieberman has hit the nail on the head. There is no taxpayer “opt-out.” So, even if states ultimately determine that they are opting out of the “public option,” taxpayers in that state would still be forced to pay for government-run health care for everyone else. And by ALG’s own estimates, that could cost some $2.1 trillion over ten years once fully implemented.

The “public option” has been drawing key opposition for more than a week now. Last week, it was Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) who warned Reid against including the “public option.” She said it would likely suffer the same fate as Medicare and Medicaid, the other two unsustainable health care entitlements the federal government has already enacted.

She said, “Why don’t we fix the two public options we have now instead of creating a third one… I think if you asked, do you want a public option but it would force the government to go bankrupt, people would say no.”

Landrieu, too, is right on target. Combined, Medicare and Medicaid will cost $710 billion in the 2010 budget. By 2019, they will cost an eye-popping $1.354 trillion annually. Throwing on another $211.5 billion a year to offer coverage for another 45 million people—at an average cost of $4,700—will most assuredly sink the Ship of State once and for all into the icy Abyss of insolvency.

Making matters worse for Reid, Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) has already headed for the lifeboats as well. She had been the only Republican to vote with Senate Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee. But yesterday, she joined with Senator Lieberman saying she would block the “public option” as well.

Then, so did Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), who voted with Senate Democrats for the trillion-dollar “stimulus”—but apparently will not for the “public option.” She said she opposed “a taxpayer-subsidized, government-run health insurance company.”

Next, Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) jumped ship, when she told the Arkansas Farm Bureau, “Creating another government-funded option is not where we're going. We don't need to go there. A government-funded option is something that I think is not the way to go.”

In other words, the “public option” is fast drowning in its own red ink—and it is taking ObamaCare down with it.

Backed into a corner, the Muroidean Reid can be expected to snarl, claw, and lash out in anger. In fact, all he has left may be an ill-starred attempt to go forward with what has been termed the “nuclear option”—the elimination of the filibuster to pass ObamaCare, complete with the “public option,” without any cloture vote.

Should he attempt to take this route, the so-called “reconciliation” process normally reserved for budget matters would be perverted to get the “public option” through by the slimmest of margins. That is, if the Senate parliamentarian—and the members of his own party—goes along with it. Which, of course, is now increasingly doubtful.

All of which leaves Reid with exactly nothing. Without Lieberman, Snowe, Collins, Landrieu, and Lincoln, he’d be at least three votes short of cloture.

But there will surely be other defections, among Senators who realize that Reid does not have the votes. And who in short order will begin a mad rush for the life rafts—each eager to make certain that he or she is not the last to die for a lost cause.

They will seize upon the opportunity to placate their own irate voters, rather than tow Reid’s onerous line. They, too, will abandon ship. And just as he did at his ill-fated news conference announcing his “opt-out” ploy, Reid will stand alone on the bridge, watching his own political career torn asunder as the sinking ObamaCare plunges beneath the rising tide of public outrage.

Robert Romano is the ALG Senior News Editor.

<< [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >>
 
© 2008 GETLIBERTY.ORG, AMERICANS FOR LIMITED GOVERNMENT