How Much Was Fox Paid to Shill Bush's War Crime in Iraq?

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The Fox network conspired with Bush's criminal regime to profit from the US plunder of Iraq. Fox was and will continue to be Bush's 'propaganda ministry' for as long as there is money to be made depicting dead Iraqis who had nothing whatsoever to do with 911. 911 was an inside job.

Who is most motivated to lie about a crime? Simply, the guilty! The biggest lies about any crime are told by those who perpetrate the crime. Fox was clearly motivated and, predictably, told the biggest whoppers about both Iraq wars. The biggest gains and the biggest whoppers are found among Bush, his co-conspirators and the Fox Network. Murdoch should be subpoenaed and compelled to testify before a federal grand jury. He shares Bush's guilt and that of the GOP, the NEOCONS, and willing, eager participants throughout the MIC.

Millions now support the prosecution of Bush for war crimes and mass murder. But what of his enablers and co-conspirators? What charges should be brought against the murderous liar --Rupert Murdoch --the modern incarnation of Hearst? How many members of the Fox board, how many executives, how many on-camera shills conspired with Bush to spread the bald-faced lies that made mass murder 'photogenic' and, therefore, palatable to an American society hooked on images of things and bodies blown up?

It boils down to a legal term: quid pro quo --the word given a 'transaction', an agreement that an item or a service is returned for something of value. Certainly, throughout Bush's war of aggression against Iraq, a war crime in which some 4000 US service personnel were sacrificed upon a bald faced lie, the relationship between Fox and Bush has been symbiotic and conspiratorial.

Fox is thus motivated to convince you that 'conspiracies' do not exist though hundreds, perhaps thousands of SCOTUS decisions have to do with conspiracies of one sort or another. There is a body of 'conspiracy law'. That such decisions exist does not prove the existence of 'conspiracies'; it is, rather, the law that defines conspiracy.

There is probable cause that Bush and Fox achieved agreement upon a quid pro quo! Members of the Fox board of directors and key executives should be considered war criminals just as was Goebbesl during the Third Reich. There is probable cause to indict many FOX executives.

To be fair, FOX has not confined its venal reporting style to a decade that will be recalled as the era of Bush atrocities and war crimes! Fox was under investigation by the ITC (independent television commission) back in the 90s, specifically nine complaints by viewers of Sky Digital satellite, controlled by Rupert Murdoch. Fox's jingoistic support of Bush's war, however, begs to be investigated by a federal panel with the power of the subpoena, an investigation with teeth. It is of little consolation to millions of victims of Bush's war of aggression in Iraq that if Fox is found to have breeched ITC 'impartiality rules', it could be forced out! Simply --Fox does not give a shit. 'Forced out' is insufficient. The Mikado said: 'let the punishment fit the crime!' I want federal indictments!

Fox does not merely slant the news; it makes it up! Keith Olbermann and Robert Greenwald exposed the truth about Fox lies.

If I were on a Federal Grand Jury investigating Bush's capital war crimes, I would demand that 'we' --the Grand Jury --issue subpoenas to Fox execs and Murdoch himself! We ask them --while they are under oath --just what is in it for Fox to make up news favorable to Bush! If Murdoch should fail to show up, we indict him for obstruction of justice. We turn Murdoch into a fugitive from justice and the rule of law. Prosecute his sorry ass. Subpoena him. Compel him to ask tough questions under oath.

What, for example, was Fox paid to orchestrate billions of dollars in 'free' publicity in support of Bush's war crimes in Iraq? To what 'quid pro quo' did Fox agree for its support of an oil war known to be extremely profitable for the Military/Industrial complex? Armaments manufacturers 'get paid' for supporting wars of aggression and other war crimes! I want to know how much the blood suckers in the media get paid for their share of the kill!

I want to ask Rupert Murdoch how he benefits personally by presiding over a news organization that when it is not making up the news lies about it. I want to know what's in it for Murdoch.

A timely subpoena might cough up thousands of emails revealing how Fox conspired with Bush to defraud Americans and the world. There is a bigger story here than a single memo. What is Murdoch's specific connection to the Bush crime syndicate? Who got paid? When? And how much?

Murdoch-owned Fox likes to think its cover 'patriotic'. Lies deliberately told to enable a traitor are themselves high treason! There is nothing patriotic about lying to the American people and the world in support of and on behalf of war criminals! There is nothing patriotic about conspiring to grease the wheels for Bushco's theft of Iraqi oil! There is nothing patriotic about sending US troops to die for Bush's vainglorious visions of conquest and oil theft. There is nothing patriotic about Fox's support of Bush's crimes, his disdain for the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, documents that Bush was sworn to uphold but, instead, subverted!

At market rates for production and air time, Fox's support was worth $billions$. FOX's foray into NFL football, for example, came at a price --almost 2 billion dollars. The move made upstart Fox a major player, right up there with CBS, ABC and NBC. Are we to believe now that Murdoch had simply given away valuable network air time to the likes of war criminals? Murdoch is not suspected of having compunctions. Murdoch is in it for the big bucks. A war on Iraq was surely worth $billions$ to Murdoch.

The 'Fairness Doctrine' came under attack during the Reagan years. By 1990, the FCC had abandoned many rules and procedures that might have prevented broadcasters from using and abusing their publicly licensed stations in service to blatant propaganda or ideology. This Reagan-era mania for 'de-regulation' made it possible for Murdoch to build an entire network around outright lies!

The objective of the 'Fairness Doctrine' was, rather, the preservation of all points of view, a requirement enforced by an FCC mandate. De-regulation, however, eliminated guidelines for non-entertainment programming guidelines. The FCC justified it all with bureaucrat-speak. Fox was thus 'set free' to propagandize and brainwash! The era of the 'media whore' was ushered in. The biggest whore of them all? FOX! Without a 'Fairness Doctrine', media whores are free to prostitute themselves, subvert what had been the profession of 'journalism'. Advertising is, at least, honest in that it is possible to learn how much the big corporations pay for spots. Ads do no pretend to be what they are not. Not so the hidden sell-out, the lie behind 'fair and balanced'.

Bill O'Reilly --arguably the world's most obnoxious, repugnant liar and loud-mouthed blowhard --stated: 'Flat out lies should be confronted.' 'Confronted' is surely O'Reilly-speak for 'embraced'. 'O brave new world, that hath such people in it'!

Since the Iraq conflict began on March 20, Fox News has been on a mission to legitimize it. One problem for Fox's protracted apologia is that despite promises of evidence of current weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) by the Bush Administration, the evidence has been ambiguous at best. Unfortunately for the network, I’ve been keeping a scratch diary of their reports since the war began.

Keep in mind that in the first three weeks of March, before the bombs started officially dropping, Fox was spreading all sorts of Pentagon propaganda. Iraq had "drones" that it could quickly dispatch to major US metropolitan areas to spread biological agents. Saddam was handing out chemical weapons to the Republican guard to use against coalition troops in a last-ditch red-zone ring around Baghdad. Given what we now know about Iraq, these reports seem to be laughable fantasies, but they were effective in securing public backing for the war. The following is a short chronicle of lies, propagation of lies, exaggerations, distortions, spin, and conjecture presented as fact. My comments are in brackets

...

"... stating that "marketplace solutions can be consistent with public interest concerns," [FN100] that "significant amounts of nonentertainment programming of a variety of types will continue on radio," [FN101] and that "stations will continue to present such programming as a response to market forces." [FN102] In the same proceeding, the Commission eliminated the requirement that stations conduct ascertainment studies to determine the problems and needs of their communities. [FN103] It dismissed concerns that free market competition would tend to limit broadcasters in their assessment of community problems to those of the economically significant segments of the community, [FN104] and left the methods of assessing community problems and needs to broadcasters' "good faith discretion." [FN105] In this proceeding, the Commission also eliminated its commercial guidelines, [FN106] stating that marketplace forces would more effectively curb excessive advertising [FN107] and that "[n]o government regulation should continue unless it achieves some public interest objective that cannot be achieved without the regulation." [FN108] [Pace University School of Law, Summer, 1990. Marc Sophos] Also [Deregulation] [Fairness Doctrine] [Fox Bias]

The independent television commission is investigating nine complaints by viewers of the channel, broadcast on Sky Digital satellite, also controlled by Rupert Murdoch.

Dale Steinreich, Fibbing It Up at Fox

---

Canadian Study a Lesson for Teabaggers: "Three in Four Suffer From Cuts to Public Spending"

From CBC.ca:

Tax cuts could diminish the standard of living for the vast majority of Canadians who enjoy the public services that they fund, according to a study (pdf HERE) by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released on Wednesday.

The majority of Canadian households enjoy a higher quality of life because of the public services their taxes fund, the study argues.
[...]
"What passes for a tax cut debate in Canada is really only half the debate," said study co-author Hugh Mackenzie, an economist. ..."The suggestion we often hear, that taxes are a burden, hides the reality that our taxes fund public services that make Canada's standard of living among the very best," he said.

The study uses Statistics Canada data on government revenues and expenditures to compare public spending in categories including health care, education, social services, old-age security benefits and employment insurance. ...Using the statistics, the report finds that the average per capita benefit from public services in Canada in 2006 was about $16,952.
[...]
"The overall impact of tax cuts — and the cuts in public services that accompany them — has not been addressed in any substantive way," the study states. "Tax cuts are always made to sound like they're free money to middle income Canadians. They are anything but," Mackenzie said. "We're far better off with the public services our taxes fund than we are with tax cuts." Any reduction in income tax results in an equivalent constraint on public spending, the study says, and about three in four Canadians suffer from cuts to public spending.

Overall, the tax cuts implemented in Canada in the last 15 years have had the net effect of reducing the living standards of most Canadians, the reports says.

The study also finds that the number of public services used by Canadians appears to increase as household income and size increase. This is particularly true for households that have children who are accessing publicly funded elementary and secondary schools and seniors who are more likely to use the public health-care system. "Families with young children will tend to benefit relatively more from the health-care system, whereas families with older children will tend to benefit from the public education system to a greater extent than other types of families," the study states.

It's not hard to predict the kind of reaction that this report is going to get from the conservative movement in the US. Reports based on provable facts and confirm-able statistics are not to their liking anyway. They much prefer to rely on ideologically-based theory drawn out of thin air (or worse) - thin air that evidently gets compressed and heated, then spewed out of bloviators' blowholes at FOX "news" in support of this tea-bagging movement. Which, by the way, is an excellent example of astroturfing as defined by Wikipedia, "formal political, advertising, or public relations campaigns seeking to create the impression of being spontaneous "grassroots" behavior, hence the reference to the artificial grass, AstroTurf."

Nor should the motive behind this campaign escape anyone but the morans (sic, see photo) it is directed towards. (or should that be against?) The conservative movement has been pretty successful in the past at getting the poorly educated to vote against their own interests based on simplistic slogans. "Read my lips, just say no, drill baby drill" etcetera. My guess is that they're trying to bring back the glory days of monosyllabic right-tard propaganda -- in spite of being utterly discredited by the spectacular economic disaster wrought from their trickle-down 'free market' policies. My hope is that they're wrong, and that even the worst of the low-information voters will wake up once they've lost their jobs and their homes, and are living in cardboard boxes and depending on food stamps. But then, past experience has been that really poor people don't vote at all, and the GOP has made it nearly impossible for the homeless to even register to vote, so that hope might be a bit optimistic.

The Economist just hosted a debate on whether it's time that the rich be required to pay more in taxes. Just reading some of the closing remarks by Chris Edwards of the Cato institute, arguing against the motion, reveals the paucity of the conservative argument. Unable to attack the logic of his opponent, he mounts a personal, ad hominem attack. "[Parisian economist Thomas] Piketty's understanding of the nature of income is very European, " he whinges. Name calling is rightly regarded as the lowest rung on the scale of debating technique, (see triangular diagram near the bottom) and is characteristic of someone who can't base their argument on facts or logic. So I would say the pro-tax side won the argument.

(Parenthetically, it could, should and must be said that this debate is just one battle being fought in an ongoing and increasingly bitter war between the classes. Because this whole unfortunately named teabagging movement is nothing more than a propaganda effort to perpetuate the Reagan tax cuts. The rich would prefer that you pay for the jackboot that presses against your own neck. If you don't mind, there's a good boy.)

One of the comments at The Economist succinctly expresses why certain functions should not and can not be left to the marketplace.

Of course, the free market doesn't provide universal quality education: thus we must rely on governments to provide this service, and others like it that also serve the greater good but generate no profit. Isn't that the point of taxes in the first place?

You'll often hear Thom Hartmann make the same point in a slightly different way on his radio show. "Don't we already have socialist fire services, socialist police forces, socialist roadways, and a socialist armed forces?"

I would add an observation of my own to that argument. When governments contract out to private enterprise to provide necessary services, they almost invariably do so under a system that is more crony capitalism than healthy competitive free enterprise. Can you say 'cost-plus, no-bid?' It is far better for the public that the money be spent within a government department where it can be more carefully controlled, and where there is recourse for diversion, mis-spending and waste. The whole 'privatization is more efficient' argument falls apart under any close examination.

Certainly the argument against paying taxes for government corruption is a valid one, but just as certainly the remedy is to attack the corruption, not the taxation. Ironically the same type of people who want to spare their buddies the burden of paying their fair share tend to be the type who want to pay off those same buddies through graft. A kind of self-fulfilling prophecy which if you think of it is hardly surprising considering that they want the government to fail. Or at least they claim to; really what they want is a government under their control - maximizing and guaranteeing their profits, socializing their losses, and calling out the guard should the hoi-polloi ever get fed up with the arrangement. In a word, fascism.

Going back to the comment made in The Economist, I think the author chose the perfect example. There is no better investment that a government can make than providing the public with free quality education. A better-educated citizen will earn much more during his lifetime, eventually paying back all the taxes gone into his schooling with interest. Which a wise government will then re-invest on educating his kids.

Maybe it's high time that the wise taxpayer learned that simple lesson. It would certainly be preferred to being conned into participating in some phony protest against your own interests.

ADDENDUM: Just as one example of the COST of LOWER taxes, here's a study of what it cost Americans to NOT have universal health care. (From the National Coalition on Health Care.) Just one fact from this piece forms a conclusive argument. The US spends 17% of GDP on health care and 40% of people are either not covered or not sufficiently covered. Canada covers EVERYBODY for 9.7% of GDP.

TAGS: Tax Day, Public Policy
Conservative "Ideology", vs. Common Sense

Published Articles on Buzzflash.net

Subscribe

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

Spread the word

Right-wing Hangover

by Doug Drenkow

The Right complaining about all the time, effort, and expense that will be required to clean up the mess left behind by eight years of their policies under the Bush administration is like a bunch of spoiled frat boys with hangovers complaining about all the noise from the cleaning crew and all the bills for the breakage left in the wake of one of their drunken bashes. A little less complaining and a lot more help would be sorely appreciated.

Subscribe

Subscribe

Spread the word

Time To Stick a Fork in Reagan's Ass

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

With Any Luck --the End of the GOP

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

It may not be the Twilight of the Gods, but, with any luck, it could be a permanent brownout of the GOP --not a political party but a crime syndicate, an evil cult, a 'canker in the body politic'.

Even the New York Times concedes that election Day exit polls have sent shivers down the GOPs notochord. According to to the numbers, the GOP is literally 'withering away'.

More than six-in-ten Americans (62%) say they have a positive opinion of the Democratic Party, compared with 40% who say they have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party. The current Democratic favorability advantage is the largest measured in nearly two decades.

The widening gap is primarily a result of an increase in favorable views of the Democratic Party since the election, up from 57% in late According to a poll conducted by The New York Times and CBS News this month, only 21 percent of respondents said that they consider themselves Republicans. This was the lowest percentage for that response since The Times started asking the question in 1992. By comparison, nearly twice as many respondents said that they consider themselves Democrats.

--Pew Report

“We’re all concerned about the fact that the very wealthy and the very poor, the most and least educated, and a majority of minority voters, seem to have more or less stopped paying attention to us, and we should be concerned that, as a result of all this, the Republican Party seems to be slipping into a position of being more of a regional party than a national one.”

--New York Times, Whither the Republicans?

Concurrently, Chris Bowers reports that the GOP has not 'blown it' due to mere mistakes. The GOP is headed for a crash not because it made mistakes but because of deliberate crimes and endemic arrogance.

• The invasion of Iraq was terrible policy to begin with, dreamt up by neo-con theorists in the Project for the New American Century in the late 1990's. It was always a bad idea to spontaneously invade and occupy a country that did not attack us and with a population that did not want us there. When has that ever ended well? That the policy was justified by intentionally misleading the country on WMD intelligence shows just how bad an idea it was from the start. There was no good reason to do it. Further, any mistakes that were made during the occupation, especially those by private contractors, would never receive serious oversight. The modern conservative movement has no intention of holding private companies accountable for anything. They certainly have no intention of holding their leaders, such as Rumsfeld and Rice, accountable for anything, since the only thing the conservative movement ever holds their leaders accountable for is being pro-choice. Iraq was always going to be a disaster, and the mistakes made would never be fixed. That is inherent to the Republican Party in the age of the conservative movement. It wasn't a "mistake."

• The attempt to privatize, and thus destroy, Social Security was run by Republicans and the conservative movement with as much political smarts as any other legislative campaign they have run since 1994. However, the difference was that Democrats and the progressive movement actually successfully fought back. This wasn't a Republican mistake--destroying Social Security has been a goal of the conservative movement for nearly fifty years. It is just what they do. Again, this was inherent to the Republican system of governance in the age of the conservative movement, but Democrats and the progressive movement just managed to throw a wrench into the machine with an effective defense.

• The Foley scandal is also the point of Republican governance in the era of the conservative movement. As brilliantly document in the 2005 book Off Center, in order to continue to govern with a radical agenda far out of line with the majority of the country, it has been necessary for conservative Republicans to operate on a powerful 50% + 1 strategy for many years. Republicans have consistently pulled power grabs in order to maintain their narrow majority through tactics such as mid-decade redistricting and voter suppression. Thus, it makes perfect sense that Republicans would cover up for a child predator as long as it meant they could keep another seat in Congress. Cover-ups in order to maintain power are inherent to the 50% + 1 strategy employed by the Republican Party in the era of the modern conservative movement. Again, this wasn't a mistake--that is just how they operate.

• When it comes to Katrina, in the era of the conservative movement, it is in no way surprising that incompetent cronies led ineffective disaster relief operations in areas where poor people and minorities live. The crony part is a gimme: people are rewarded in the modern conservative movement for supporting the movement, not for being good at their jobs, or even qualified for their jobs. It also is in no way surprising that a movement which proclaims its desire to "drown government in a bathtub" wasn't exactly well prepared to have a governmental organization respond to a disaster of this scale. And heck, since African-American in New Orleans are not exactly a demographic the movement sees as key to maintaining its 50% + 1 majority, there wasn't an immediately apparent political need to respond with utmost urgency. Maybe if New Orleans had several women in persistent vegetative states on life support, and each of them happened to have huge, conservative, white evangelical followings, then the Bush administration would have been better prepared to capably respond. But, since it wasn't key to their own base, it wasn't high on the list of priorities.
--Republicans Are Not Losing Because of "Mistakes"

I told you so!

The GOP is NOT a political party; it is a crime syndicate, a kooky cult! GOP policies are intended to enrich its base and they succeeded in doing that. As of this moment just one percent of the nation owns more than about 90 percent or more of the rest us combined.

The salaries of CEOs have risen exponentially since 1980, the year of Reagan's ascension if not his apotheosis. That economic polarization is by design, the result of favorable treatment given 'elites' at least since Ronald Reagan.

To understand the GOP, you must first understand that only the GOP base benefited from GOP tax cuts. Everyone else lost ground. GINI indices from the Bureau of Labor Stats, the Census Bureau and the US Commerce Dept-BEA prove it beyond any reasonable doubt. The process by which the GOP elite gains at everyone's else expense halted and reversed for a brief while under Bill Clinton only to resume with a vengence under the failed and criminal Presidency of George W. Bush.

The heads of America's 500 biggest companies received an aggregate 54% pay raise last year. As a group, their total compensation amounted to $5.1 billion, versus $3.3 billion in fiscal 2003.

We define total compensation as salary and bonus plus "other" compensation, which includes vested restricted stock grants and "stock gains," the value realized from exercising stock options during the just-concluded fiscal year.

For those companies in which the chief executive has been in office six years or longer, we looked at average six-year total compensation and compared this to long-term stock performance of industry peers as well as the overall stock market. We ranked 189 chief executives in our performance versus pay scorecard.

--Forbes

B.R. (before Reagan) anyone earning 100,000 dollars per year was earning real money. Today, 100,000 dollars could not make a down payment on even a modest River Oaks (Houston) mansion. CEO salaries in 1970 (including bonus packages) averaged $700,000 or about 25 times 'worker' salaries. By the year 2000, CEO salaries approached $2.2 million, some 90 times average worker salaries. [See:2004 study on CEO pay by Kevin J. Murphy and Jan Zabojnik].

Wealth Does Not Trickle Down

Don't believe the marlarky peddled by business publications that CEO pay increases the tax base! As long as there are 'tax dodges' the gulf between 'tax base' and 'revenues' will never close. If what the business publications say were true, why have trillions been exported to offshore tax dodges since the ascension of Ronnie Reagan? How does money that is squirreled away offshore increase 'tax bases'. Bluntly: CEOs salaries do not increase the tax base. They subvert it! The 'business' publications are lying. Wealth does not trickle down; it rushes upward and leaves behind an impoverished nation on the brink of another GOP 'great depression'.

The causes of depression now as then are greed and lies! Wealth did not trickle down then. It has not trickled down since Ronald Reagan began the trend with this improvident, 'supply side' tax cut of 1982 which his own Budget Director, David Stockman, called a 'trojan horse'.

A 'Trojan Horse' is a deadly virus that pretends to be something it is not. Disguised, it infiltrates the body politic, the body 'economic'. The GOP leadership and Ronald Reagan did not dare tell you the truth. They dared not tell you that the intended goal of the 'tax cuts' was to pay off the GOP 'base'. Seen in this way, it is fair to categorize GOP 'tax cuts' as payoffs or bribes.

GOP 'supply side' theories were to the economy as AIDS was to the populace: a deadly infestation -- 'canker on the body politic' --for which there has been no cure and little treatment since the ascension and, later, the apotheosis of the 'Great Communicator', Ronald Reagan, about whom GOPPERS still swoon: "he made us feel good about ourselves!" That was Reagan's 'gift'. Bush's gift to the rest of us was that he made even the GOP base feel like the slimy, reptilians that they really are.

Now, in anticipation of the much heard factoid: '...but the Democrats are just as bad!'

No! Democrats are NOT just as bad!

The following stats are just a sample of the numerous, seemingly endless instances in which the GOP has been dead wrong and the Democratic party has been absolutely correct. Let's take a look at the history before it gets re-written:

• Any Democratic President has presided over greater economic growth and job creation than any Republican President since World War II.
• When Bush Jr took office, job creation was worst under a Republican, Bush Sr, at 0.6% per year and best under a Democrat, Johnson, at 3.8% per year.
• Economic growth under President Carter was far greater than under Reagan or Bush Sr. In fact, economic growth in general was greater under Johnson, Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton than under Reagan or Bush. Democrats always outperform a failed party: the GOP!
• The job creation rate under Clinton was 2.4% significantly higher than Ronald Reagan's 2.1% per year.
• The "top performing Presidents" by this standard, in order from best down, were Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and Kennedy. The "worst" (in descending order) were Nixon, Reagan, Bush.
• Half of jobs created under Reagan were in the public sector --some 2 million jobs added to the Federal Bureaucracy. Hadn't he promised to reduce that bureaucracy?
• Reagan, though promising to reduce government and spending, tripled the national debt and left huge deficits to his successor. Bush Jr's record will be even worse.
• By contrast, most of the jobs created on Clinton's watch were in the private sector.
• Put another way: any Democratic President beats any Republican President since World War II.

These are just a few that I had knocked out quickly in preparation for a previous article. With any real work, any one with a nodding acquaintance of economics can demolish the GOP. The GOP is a crime syndicate, specially a FRAUD foisted upon the American populace in order to enrich the increasingly tiny elite. That they have been highly successful is convincing evidence, perhaps absolute proof of the cult-like nature of this phony 'party'.

Addendum:

A statue of shoes, erected in honor of an Iraqi journalist who dared to express his outrage over Bush's capital crimes against the people of Iraq, has been ordered taken down. Let's protest this decision by sharing pictures of shoes on as many 'inter-tube' sites as will allow you to post them.

Additional resoruce:

• Republican Congress to Republican Governors: Drop Dead

Subscribe

Subscribe in a reader

GOP, Bush, Evil, Tyranny

Spread the word