Rampart Media
Stay Connected
  • Top Stories
  • Blog
  • About/Contact

Moral Imperatives

11/30/2013

0 Comments

 
Brian Beutler of Salon recently posted an article titled, “Right-wing Extremists face new moral conundrum.” The article operates on the assumption that once Obamacare starts firing on all cylinders---or, as the author more humbly put it, “When Healthcare.gov actually starts working”---Republicans will have to choose between “politics” and “their constituents’ health.” This so-called “moral conundrum” results from the fact that Obamacare caused tens of millions of people to lose their coverage; Beutler writes: “Once Healthcare.gov is working at high capacity, [Republicans] will owe people with canceled coverage more than just the play-acting they’ve offered for the past month.” Beutler refers to this situation as a “moral imperative,” and explicitly identifies the “conundrum” in the final sentence of his article: “Democrats will be helping these people find such coverage. Will Republicans?”

It seems that Beutler has failed to consider the fact that this choice, between “politics” and “constituents’ health,” was entirely made possible by Barack Obama, and that politicians engaging in “politics” was an entirely foreseeable occurrence. If Obamacare was designed in such a way that it required the cooperation of Republicans in order to operate effectively, why pass it without a single Republican vote? Furthermore, if helping those with cancelled plans find new ones represents a “moral imperative,” what is the moral status of the law that caused them to lose their coverage in the first place? If we envision a scenario in which Republicans fail to live-up to this contrived-duty to help people find coverage, how can we spare Obamacare, the system that brought this duty into existence, from a moral-indictment? The progressives love to paint Republicans, and the Tea Party in particular, as ignorant, incompetent, anti-worker, anti-entitlement, racists; and yet they created a health care system that relied-upon these loathsome know-nothings in order to operate effectively? I believe they’ve just brought the term, “specious-imperative,” into existence…



0 Comments

Constitutional Confusion and "The Obama Rule"

11/21/2013

0 Comments

 
Yesterday, Barack Obama claimed that invoking the nuclear option was necessary, because the "obstructionism" of the Republicans was "not what the Founders envisioned." Nearly 14 months ago, Matt Lauer asked President Obama about the feeling among some of his supporters regarding his failure to deliver on the promises of his first campaign; Obama responded: "What frustrates people is that I've not been able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008. Well, it turns out that our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes." The man who spent nearly a decade teaching constitutional law at one of the nation's highest ranked law schools, apparently didn't know about the system our Founders designed until he became president. It would seem that I was wrong to dismiss his time as a professor as irrelevant to the job of the president; teaching constitutional law for that long without knowing about the Constitution, perfectly prepared him to not know about the IRS targeting Tea Party groups, the NSA spying on Americans, the Justice Department spying on journalists, the Benghazi timeline, the glaring flaws of Obamacare, and so on…Obama invoking the Founders is like Karl Marx invoking Adam Smith; as he made clear to Matt Lauer, the Founders are an obstacle on his path---not his compass. 

To be fair, Obama is not alone in his constitutional confusion. During the shutdown, Harry Reid mockingly asked: "What right does [The Majority Party in the House] have to pick and choose which parts of the government are funded?" Last week, a still-seething John McCain snarled that people who believed that defunding Obamacare could work were "very naive about the Constitution of the United States." The "Origination Clause" of the Constitution states: "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills;" and the "Appropriations Clause" states, in relevant part: "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by law." The Founders even ensured that, in the event of a veto, the bill would need to go all the way back to the House, so as to ensure that the Senate and the president could not conspire to bypass the House. So what does John McCain mean by the word "naive"---which is not the same as saying that they are "mistaken" or "incorrect." Are they naive for believing that the Constitution actually matters? Or for thinking that people like him would actually abide by it? Or are they naive for thinking that something as insignificant as the Constitution could stand against the all-powerful "political atmosphere" of the passing moment?


Was the author of The Federalist No. 58, James Madison, also naive? Madison wrote: "The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of the government." That's as clear an answer as I could imagine for Harry Reid's snarky question, but maybe John McCain is correct in the sense that we are naive for thinking that the Constitution granted the House the power to use funding as a means to reduce or eliminate government programs that have the support of the other branches. Madison continued: "[The House], in a word, holds the purse---that humble instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of government." Well, maybe it's the case that, while some power existed, it didn't give the House complete control to use the "purse" as a weapon to redress their grievances. One more excerpt from Madison: "This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure." Or maybe John McCain is just wrong.


Regardless, I'm all-for the standard that Obama advocated yesterday; the Republican Party should adopt it as "the Obama Rule," and apply it to all acts of government, eliminating any act that contradicts what the Founders envisioned. The truth is, Obama is exactly what the Founders envisioned when they wrote a Constitution with checks and balances that extended throughout the federal government itself, and to the states and the people. His speech yesterday referenced "obstructionism" in regard to: "legislation that might create jobs…women fighting for equal pay…young immigrants trying to earn their citizenship…end tax breaks for companies that are shipping jobs overseas…steps to protect Americans from gun violence," all before his oh-by-the-way conclusion: "And they’ve prevented far too many talented Americans from serving their country at a time when their country needs their talents the most." The nuclear option has no effect on the five legislative items he mentioned, it only effects nominations. It would seem that Obama, once again, is unaware; in this case, he seems to be unaware of the Senate rules, which might explain why Senator Obama gave a speech back in 2005, which contradicts the speech he gave yesterday. He argued: "You know, the Founders designed this system, as frustrating as it is, to make sure that there’s a broad consensus before the country moves forward.” Whereas yesterday he stated: “If you’ve got a majority of folks who believe in something, it should be able to pass.” Does any Republican need any more motivation to ensure that we keep the House and take the Senate in 2014?







 
0 Comments

Anti-Ideology: Part I

11/20/2013

0 Comments

 
If we all suddenly submitted to the incessant pleas for moderation, which dominate our political discourse, what would come next? What would replace the cacophony of the ear-piercing indictments of ideology, the bellowing condemnations of "extremism," and the self-serving pragmatic bluster? If we delivered Rush Limbaugh's "Golden EIB Microphone," as proof that we had extinguished the wicked witch of extremism, what would the wonderful wizard of political moderation grant us? Brains, heart, and courage, to make our party complete? Would the cacophony be replaced by harmonious pipe organs and gregorian chants, marking the commencement of our ascension to political divinity---toward the immaculate ideal of "electability?" Or, would we pullback the curtain to reveal a small-minded cynic; a con artist who's only goal was his own power---whose only talent was ensuring that you never actually saw him? 

After all, what exactly can a political moderate offer? If the so-called extremists were all to accept the ideal of moderation, that ideal would no longer exist---moderation, as a concept, is only valid in reference to that which it is moderating; alone, it is nothing. The long-range vision offered by those who advocate moderation as a political ideal is like the illusion of an oasis in the desert, fading into thin-air as you approach; and the once-deafening pleas of those advocates are like the chirps of crickets, becoming more and more infrequent, then suddenly silent when you finally reach them. Joe Scarborough and Bernie Goldberg have been chirping quite loudly in defense of Chris Christie's moderation lately, and have taken to calling the Tea Party "RINO's" in an effort to paint Christie as the true conservative---which they, of course, define in accordance with his perceived "electability," and not his actual conservatism. 

Bernie Goldberg made the absurd claim that: “The real RINO’s are the people in the Tea Party, and on the hard right, because they have made it clear...that their allegiance is, not to the Republican Party, but to their particular brand of conservatism. So they’re the RINO’s;” while Scarborough stated: “NBC News quoted a Tea Party leader who said Chris Christie is no different than Harry Reid...Those people can’t be reasoned with. They are RINOs. They don’t understand what it means to be a Republican, they don’t understand what it means to be a conservative. They don’t understand what it’s like to win elections. They don’t get it.” I must admit that this last charge is probably true; when Joe Scarborough is talking, I truly feel like I don't get it.  

In those majestic, right-place/right-time, moments when I'm lucky enough to hear his enlightened opinions, I have difficulty grasping the notion that Joe Scarborough is human just like me---that he's not a god---that he puts on his socks one at a...then I see his sock-less loafers mired in the slimy residue of spilt mocha lattes covering the floor of the Morning Joe set, and I'm reminded that his feet touch the ground just like mine (I wouldn't wear socks either if I made a living in the mud)---I assume that his head is in fact in the clouds, though, because he's always squinting while wearing those awesome glasses, which you're only allowed to buy if you have a note from a doctor that says you're smarter than everyone else. As for Bernie Goldberg, his nasal voice sounds like it’s the result of his nose orchestrating a compromise between his contentious mouth and passive brain; like a natural defense mechanism designed to conceal and attenuate the antagonistic nature of his words by conveying the sense that they reverberate no further than his own nasal---like his nose is holding back his mouth as if it were the embarrassed friend of a belligerent drunk hoping that nobody will take him seriously.

Until Goldberg and Scarborough choose to define their terms, and to raise the level of their discourse beyond attaching naked assertions to randomly-chosen concretes (which Tea Party leader was Scarborough even referring too? And what is the significance of that individual's views in relation to the rest of the Tea Party?), and until they are ready to explicitly identify which ideology and which political principles they are rebelling against, this will be the only type of response they deserve---as it would be for a manipulative toddler throwing a temper tantrum in response to not getting what it wants, while having no idea what that actually is. Everything Scarborough rants against in the Republican Party, everything he throws his pacifier-lidded latte at, is a concrete---usually a Tea Party member doing their best to advocate conservative ideals---while everything he claims to want is abstract---either existing in the past, or in some future, which he is prevented from sharing with the rest of us due to his inability to coherently articulate his ideology (vs. that of the Tea Party) ---he is the quintessential toddler. The only question that I have for them is: If the Tea Party and the "hard-right" didn't exist, what would you call Chris Christie? In relation to what would he be a moderate? In contrast to what would he be a conservative? If they believe that Christie is the "true Republican," it would seem that Scarborough and Goldberg envision an entire party that is Republican-in-name-only.











0 Comments

Can't Stand Rand

11/3/2013

1 Comment

 
Rand Paul has the Left in an absolute panic, and Rachel Maddow’s latest attempt to smear him was clear evidence of that fact. Maddow ran a segment in which she gleefully accused Rand Paul of “really really blatant plagiarism,” in regard to a speech in which he used a 1997 movie, Gattaca, as an analogy. Maddow ran about 50 seconds, sliced and diced into 4 soundbites, of Rand Paul’s actual speech, and spent the other five-and-a-half minutes of the segment yammering away. There are so many loose threads on this poorly stitched sweater that I’m almost not sure where to start…or if any rebuttal is necessary. 

Maddow stated, “The speech that Rand Paul gave seems to be totally plagiarized from the Wikipedia page on Gattaca,” and continued by lecturing Paul that he’s foolish to consider running for president while thinking that he’s, “Going to get away with lifting your speeches from Wikipedia while you’re doing that.” While I could think of many ways to prove that her accusations are false, I think I’ll start with her own words: 

“His speech overall was about being anti-abortion, and Ken Cuccinelli being very anti-abortion, and the theme he used to illustrate that was, basically he said that people who are pro-choice on the issue of abortion are sort of like the evil autocratic state in the movie Gattaca. They want to kill off anyone whose DNA aren’t approved of by society. Seriously that’s the argument.”

Where did Maddow find that on the Wikipedia page? She stated that Rand Paul’s “speech” was “totally plagiarized from the Wikipedia page on Gattaca,” but her own review of his speech disproves that accusation. She accused him of "lifting [his] speech from Wikipedia," but, like a prosecutor overcharging the defendant, she didn't even attempt to prove that he "lifted" the actual speech, or any portion of it other than a few descriptors of the plot of the movie---again, not the actual speech, or even the general concept (which can't be plagiarized anyway). Paul's use of the plot as an analogy, which he explicitly cited, and even signaled air-quotes as he described, falls squarely within what is known as "fair use" in the copyright context.

This is the key point: She rhetorically accuses him of plagiarizing the actual speech, "lifting [it] from Wikipedia," but only attempts to prove that he plagiarized the portion of the speech in which he described the plot of a movie. The Wikipedia page was not about a speech, which used the plot of the movie Gattaca as an example of the concept of eugenics, and how that concept relates to abortion---but it would have had to been in order for Paul to have plagiarized it. The description of a plot cannot be copyrighted, especially by a third-party, and plagiarism is mostly a judgment call that uses copyright law as a guideline. How could Wikipedia claim to own the words used to describe a plot, many of which are used both in the movie itself, and in the promotional trailers and descriptions of the movie, when those words are not unique "creative works," but rather secondary descriptors of someone else's work? They don't; only Maddow and the rest of her feral pack of rabid anti-Rand Leftists make that claim.  

“Plagiarism” is a sloppy term without a legal definition; it comprises the grey area where proper scholarship ends, and generally before copyright infringement begins---its an intellectual or academic crime. Sloppy concepts are Maddow’s specialty, though, as they allow her to shuffle around fundamentals and non-essentials like a street hustler running a game of three card monte. The fact that Paul’s words are substantially similar to the words on the Wikipedia page is a non-essential when the the nature of text in question is a movie plot. Furthermore, plagiarism requires that the individual pass the work off as their own, but, as the first clip of Paul’s speech shows, he did exactly the opposite, stating: “In the movie Gattaca,” followed by air-quotes as he began describing the plot, “In the not too distant future…” He both 1) credited the movie, and 2) provided air-quotes to indicate he was referencing someone else's language. End of argument.

It's worth noting, though, that Politifact, which, like Maddow, specializes in willfully confusing fundamentals and non-essentials in order to pre-package opinions for uniformed readers or viewers, rated Maddow's accusation as, "True." Politifact is designed to re-air liberal attack lines under the guise of "fact-checking." They're cynical, dishonest, and a truly pathetic group of political hacks. These so-called "fact-checkers" merely reproduced the same four clips from Maddow's segment, after which they wrote, "Sensing a pattern? So are we"---a statement clearly intended to mislead the reader into thinking that they could go on, but don't need to since the "pattern" has been established. The link that they provide to Paul's speech is actually a link to a Washington Post article from a reporter who covered the speech, which interestingly contained no reference to the movie Gattaca. In other words, Politifact didn't even review Paul's actual speech, they simply rehashed Maddow's argument, threw-in a couple bare-ass opinions from so-called "experts," one of which they even identify as a Democrat, just so they can make it look like they did some research. According to Politifact's standards, Rand Paul, or Ted Cruz, or anyone else who posses a threat to the Left, couldn't get away with saying that the "sky is blue" without meeting "factual" resistance, but Politifact thinks that they've done there due diligence in regard to Maddow's claims? Or maybe they just don't think…


 






1 Comment

Full of Paloney

11/2/2013

0 Comments

 
During an interview with Megyn Kelly this week, Congressman Frank Pallone (D-NJ) offered the “capitalism” defense to Obamacare. Just as with the “conservatism” defense, which holds that the individual mandate is a product of “conservative notions” that Obama accepted in the name of compromise, the “capitalism” defense is a frantic attempt by Democrats to disown Obamacare and disarm its critics. I don’t know whether he was tired, enjoyed himself a little too much at happy hour, or just stepped off of a tilt-a-whirl, but Pa-llone was looking more like Sta-llone after going 15 rounds with Ivan Drago in Rocky IV---swaying from side-to-side with his eyes barely open. It was as if he was the embodiment of political spin; his mouth was working so hard to spin for Obamacare that his body followed suit. Regardless, all that spinning clearly left Pallone disoriented, as the wobbly-wonk failed on both his facts and his logic. 

The interview seemed like a modern take on Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, with Megyn Kelly playing the role of Alice, and Frank Pallone as Humpty Dumpty. When Alice meets Humpty, she soon becomes frustrated with him, and objectives to his seemingly nonsensical use of certain words, to which Humpty (Pallone) replies: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean---nothing more nor less." Alice often found herself at a lost for words of her own, as Humpty made words "mean so many things," and ended the conversation by saying "of all the unsatisfactory people of I've ever met..." (it wasn't even worth her finishing the sentence). As it went for Alice, so it went for Megyn.

“Let the marketplace decide; let the marketplace decide.” It’s hard to ever know exactly what Pallone means, as he seems to design his own language on the fly (last week he mixed-up his metaphors and referred to a committee hearing on Obamacare as a “monkey court”---which apparently combines a kangaroo court with the scopes monkey trial), but, in any case, he’s wrong. Pallone referred to the Obamacare marketplace as a “capitalist, private market,” after earlier stating: “It’s capitalism, you can go out and buy whatever you want, but the insurance companies realize they can’t sell this lousy insurance policy anymore.” As Rand Paul correctly pointed out in an interview with Hannity this week: “Liberals have no idea how capitalism works.” 

Understanding capitalism requires understanding the difference between economic power and political power. Political power is unique within a given sovereign region, as it involves legal coercion or the use of force, and the government is the only entity within that region that may use, or expropriate such power (it’s the only true monopoly); economic power only exists within the context of freedom, and is purely persuasive---all relationships and associations are thus voluntary, leaving men free to trade, contract, and associate in accordance with their own judgment and values. In a capitalist system, there is no such thing as a “consumer” as apart from a “producer:” That notion only exists within a welfare or socialist state. Accordingly, economic interactions are the product of trade, in which goods and/or services (including labor) are exchanged, and “value” is dictated in accordance with an incalculable number of value judgments by individuals who are free to make them, the sum of which make up the free market.

Pallone’s use of the notion that people are free to “buy whatever [they] want,” is thus a false concept---both the supply and the demand must be the product of volition. Having the government dictate that insurance plans may only be sold if they include x, y, and z, involves the same concept as having the government dictate that you may only speak if you say x, y, and z. The freedom of speech is not simply the freedom from being told exactly what to say, and thus freedom in an economic context is not simply the freedom from being told exactly what you may exchange, and exactly what you may exchange it for. Pallone’s false concept was apparently the subtext for Obama’s, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan,” mantra, and is reminiscent of Henry Ford’s statement that people could have the Model-T in any color they want, so long as its black.

Understanding Pallone’s sudden discovery that Obamacare is in fact capitalism, requires nothing more than understanding that, in the mind of a socialist, all of societies problems, real and perceived, are attributable to freedom, and freedom in an economic context is capitalism. Whatever the context, their argument can be broken down to: “It’s freedom’s fault.” And the corollary of that argument is: “Give me the power to control it---all of it.”

Many people seem shocked that the Obama Administration seemingly put such little effort into the “rollout” of Obamacare, and its concrete manifestation, the website. They shouldn’t be. Obamacare, like all government entitlement expansions, was about power, not people, and its justification was the altruist morality. Altruism is an ethical value system that implicitly denies the existence of values, and focuses exclusively on who should benefit from a value system. So long as someone, with some need, but not yourself, is the professed beneficiary of your actions, your actions are moral. Altruist actions are thus moral exercises, not practical ones. It is only the motive of the subject, and the need of the object that count under an altruist (anti) value system (and the former is only defined in reference to the latter).

This is why the Left wears it as a badge of honor when more and more people are sucked into entitlement programs, and out of the workforce; as the number of people who are dependent on their assistance (which itself is confiscated from others) grows, they believe that their moral importance grows right along with it---a belief that is nothing more than a confession of their moral impotence. Altruism creates a moral vacuum, and it’s thus no surprise that whether or not Obamacare is a net negative in terms of the number of people gaining/losing insurance is of little concern to them. When judgment is replaced by motivation as the criteria by which actions are evaluated, success is necessarily replaced by justification as the criteria by which results are evaluated. It’s thus no surprise that they put such little effort into the actual nuts and bolts required to make this system work, and such great effort into selling it to the American people (rhetorically selling it, that is, as an abstraction). The altruist morality requires only good intentions, not good results---don't be surprised by the horrifying nature of the actual concrete results.


0 Comments

Bootleg Conservatism

11/2/2013

0 Comments

 
The Left has impressively completed a quick transition in the last few weeks. They’ve gone from 1) promoting Obamacare, to 2) defending Obamacare, to 3) disowning Obamacare. Watching their interviews and speeches during the course of the week was like watching an episode of Maury Povich in which they suddenly learned that “Obama’s baby” (as it was affectionately called just last month) is actually the legislative love-child of conservatism and capitalism. Jonathan Gruber, an economics professor who helped craft both Romneycare and Obamacare, appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews, and was asked to give his opinion on what it is that the Republicans are “angry about” in regard to Obamacare:

“The simple facts are Obamacare is built on Romneycare, and Romneycare is built on conservative notions proposed by the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990’s to oppose the Clinton health care reform...Romney adopted those ideas and made them the centerpiece of his law. President Obama, despite the fact that in the election he was opposed to the mandate, recognized it was a system that had worked well in Massachusetts...He, to his credit, changed his views, adopted the mandate, and once he put his name to it, suddenly the right wing disliked it...Suddenly it’s the devil’s work. I don’t see any argument other than it’s just ugly partisan politics.”

Gruber is selling himself short; his facts may be “simple,” but evading the last twenty years of history in order to find them, rip them from their context, and smuggle them back into the present discussion, sounds anything but simple. “Smuggling” is apparently Gruber’s specialty, because, according to his claims, he’s been able to get signature health care laws, based on “conservative notions,” past Democrat-controlled legislatures. I think that I speak for all conservatives when I say that we would love to know his secret, but I don’t know that for sure---only Gruber has the ability to identify which conservatives speak for all the rest. That ability must come from the same source as his ability to know what people want in regard to health care plans better than they do.


Gruber is nothing more than an ideological bootlegger; tearing obscure, twenty-year-old labels from a political product that never made it to the market, and passing it off as brand name conservatism.  His argument is specious to its vacuous core, but the Republican Establishment aids and abets in the bootlegging of fundamental conservative principles when it sacrifices a clear ideology in pursuit of a broad appeal. To borrow their “big tent” metaphor, they focus on the size of the tent at the expense of the strength of the supporting poles and the sturdiness of the foundation.

Stuart Butler, the author of the early ‘90’s Heritage proposal, was attempting to seek a “viable alternative” to the Clinton plan, which necessitated that he design his plan in accordance with the premise that those who wanted health insurance, but could not afford it, would have it provided to them via some form of a societal subsidy. If Butler were attempting to simply “oppose” the Clinton plan, he would have rejected that premise---any plan that accepts that premise is based on socialistic notions, and Butler’s goal was simply designed to mitigate the economic effects of those ill-conceived notions. He claims that he was attempting to design a plan that would avoid the insurance “death spiral” that would occur if the number of sick people who were in need of health care, but couldn’t afford insurance without government assistance, were not balanced out by healthy people who could afford it. While his plan was, at best, a lesser evil, and he has long since disavowed it and stood against the individual mandate, recent events have shown that his concern was well founded.

The “Butler lesson” is that, when it comes to compromise, Republicans are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Where there is disagreement on basic principles, no compromise is possible. The fundamental essence of a basic principle (in the political context) is that it is an initial source from which a political value system flows; just as with a building, the foundation cannot be open to compromise without also compromising, as in undermining, the stability of the rest of the structure which depends on that foundation in order to keep from crumbling.

I can’t entirely blame Gruber for believing that “conservative notions” are nothing more than slight modifications, seemingly conceived of and applied arbitrarily to legislation that is built on the Democrats’ fundamental principles. The Republican Party spent the vast majority of the last 80 years in the minority. Over that time, the Party retained only the semblance of its pro-capitalist/pro-constitutional identity, and primarily became a political support group for those who were opposed to particular aspects of Progressivism, like family values, taxes, spending, foreign policy, regulation, abortion, etc...

Members of the political establishment soon realized that they could become a big fish in a smaller pond by joining the Republican Party, while using whatever aspect of Progressivism that they opposed in order to leverage concessions from the Democrats, enriching themselves, but never truly threatening the “progress” of socialism. These opportunistic politicians joined with the disaffected political souls wandering toward the Republican Party muttering their own political version of the serenity prayer. They prayed that the base would simply accept the progression toward socialism as that which “cannot be changed”---and thus free them from the burden of truly opposing it; they prayed for the base’s courage to take a stand when they truly needed them to; and they prayed that the base would not question their wisdom when adopting the Left’s principles in order to “win elections.”

If we continue down this path, America will soon be as serene as the aftermath of a tornado.


0 Comments

    Author

    Stu

    Archives

    June 2014
    May 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Thank you for visiting Rampart Media! Please be sure and visit our about us/contact page!
A special thanks to FeedWind for keeping the links up an running.