Rethinking DADT

by Rossputin | 7:03 am, December 21, 2010

Full disclosure: I write this as someone who has never served in the military. However, both of my parents did and I have lived on and grown up around military bases and am a strong supporter of our armed forces and their critical mission.

On Saturday, the US Senate voted to repeal the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (“DADT”) policy which prevents openly gay people from serving in the military. Eight Republicans voted with 57 Democrats for passage and the measure will go to President Obama for his signature as the House has already passed the bill.

Once signed, the necessary rule changes will be done gradually by the Pentagon in an effort to ensure minimal disruption to the functioning of the military, not least to combat unit cohesion.

DADT was enacted by Congress in 1993 in an effort to make sure Bill Clinton didn’t allow openly gay people to serve in the military, a promise he made similar to the one Barack Obama made during his campaign. It’s been a hot-button issue for Democrat politicians (including Clinton) since then.

In the past, I have written against repeal of DADT, arguing that it does not represent bias since all it’s asking for is a lack of information” I realize “gay rights” groups disagree with my interpretation, but I don’t care very much about the views of “victims” groups since I tend to see them as just one of the ways that our society becomes balkanized with one identity group trying to get special treatment from government or from society, usually from heterosexual white males.

For example, I wrote this: “Do you think military officers would consider it good behavior by soldiers or sailors if those young men or women spent more than 3 seconds expressing their heterosexuality during work hours? If anything, repeal of DADT will not allow or even encourage gays to behave in a way which would not normally be permitted of non-gays. It’s just the next step in adding a super-protected victim class to another area of American society. ”

I also mentioned one possible path the repeal of DADT could take us down:

My view is that the military is not a place for diversity training. It’s all about the mission. And, like it or not, many members of our military are young, hardly worldly, not especially well-educated, and not necessarily broad-minded. It is far more likely that repealing DADT will lead to disruption of order on bases or ships. Indeed, I can easily imagine a litigation-minded gay soldier serving just a little too openly and perhaps taking some verbal or physical abuse in order to be able to sue the government for not protecting his “rights”. That is to say his non-existent right not to be offended (if he takes verbal abuse), or his actual right not to be beaten up – which should be mitigated if you do something which you know is likely to cause a negative reaction in those around you, especially a bunch of tense young soldiers whose definition of diversity is whether to have a Miller Lite or a Coors Lite.

While I still think these are real risks to military operation, I can’t help but return to the words of wisdom my friend Don Boudreaux always demands people ask when thinking about economic policy: “Compared to what?”

I’m drifting, or perhaps have drifted, to a different conclusion about DADT based on that question, not least from learning that over 14,000 servicemen and women have been drummed out of the military under DADT since the policy’s implementation 17 years ago.

Readers of these pages will note that I rarely change my view on an issue, but then I usually write mostly about economics where most of the answers are, to a committed capitalist, fairly obvious. But my view on DADT has made a substantial evolution:

Can the military, which is to say can our nation, afford to lose an average of over 800 volunteer soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen each year, especially while we’re fighting two wars? And given the known, or at least perceived, hostility toward gays within the military, doesn’t it stand to reason that these volunteers might perhaps be some of the most committed to serving their country given the extra hardship they go through to do so?

I’ve reached a conclusion that we shouldn’t prevent openly gay people from serving in the military based on fears which don’t have very much evidence behind them and fears that a few people will misuse our military and courts for their own benefit.

Indeed, the best answer to my fear of someone trying to extort money from the military or a member of the military based on having “rights” violated is perhaps for this nation to get a better handle on its court system, its judges, its legislators, and the tendency of juries to think of large institutions (whether public or private) as unlimited sources of money for those who claim even minor victimhood.

One of the biggest domestic risks to our military, as shown by the murderous Major Hasan at Ft. Hood, is political correctness. The same fear of doing the right thing out of fear of being called racist is perhaps the major risk of failure of repeal of DADT: Military and non-military tribunals must show early and often that they won’t serve as lottery tickets for gays who present cases of feeling offended or even being insulted. If gays choose to make their lifestyle an issue at work or around coworkers, they should do so prepared for certain consequences. That said, those consequences must not include any physical harm or professional disadvantage (such as being passed over for promotion) unless their behavior damages the operation of the military, in which case that person should probably be discharged anyway – and in which case a military or civilian court should generally defer to the military’s judgment.

Perhaps another way to deal with the risk of the sorts of lawsuits I describe above is to attach some sort of penalty (e.g. monetary, busting in rank, dismissal) to someone who files such a suit and is found to have intentionally caused the actions of others for which he or she is now suing.

I maintain my view that the military does not have diversity training in its mission statement, nor should it ever. Their job is primarily to break things and hurt people. But if patriotic non-heterosexuals want to take part in that mission, I no longer see a significant enough reason to stop them.

Bottom line: It’s a travesty that more than 14,000 people who have wanted to serve in the US military have been denied that opportunity – and that the nation has been denied their loyal service – because they have a preference to sleeping with someone of the same gender. Gay and straight military personnel should, to the greatest extent possible, keep their private lives to themselves, particularly during work hours, just as all normal people do during their work hours regardless of their sexual orientation, and get going with their critical mission of protecting our nation. It is one of the highest possible callings and it has become clear to me that sexual preference simply can’t be a disqualifying characteristic in and of itself.

———

A friend of mine who served in the military, including working in the Pentagon, and is still an officer in the reserves, offered these thoughts:

I agree with you. I have grown to accept the idea, but am also violently opposed to using the military to change society. Just because you can impose thoughts on individuals and challenge/force to do things they wouldn’t do in society–ie kill someone or take risks that will kill them–through the structure and discipline of the system does not mean that you should do it for everything. To do so unnecessarily, for the sake of social change, verges on fascism and abuse of power that this country was built to oppose.

However, the sad thing, and here is where we may differ a bit, is that the military has essential grown to be more sophisticated overall than the general population of the US. Exposure to nearly 20 years (Desert Storm, 1992) of continual large scale military operations on an unprecedented tempo has raised a military that has truly seen the world; they have become cosmopolitan in their own way. They have been exposed to exotic and archaic cultures and social practices. They have seen modernization and regression. They remain far more integrated on a daily basis, socially, than most of our comfortable, lazy, hypocritical society living their individual lives here in the US. It is for this reason that maybe the military is ready to handle this change before the rest of America.

The fact still remains that nothing should be done to risk American lives and there are still pockets of the military that are not prepared to handle this, most of them operational. It is a fact that nearly 25% of the DepSecDef’s support staff is gay. That theme is not a product of this administration. The military has grown to accept this already. Any transition from DADT should leverage on these functions to continue the progress towards acceptance. It is no different in many respects to the role women played and the process they went through to gain acceptance. It has only been since my commission into the military that they were able to go into operations. They same approach should be taken for openly serving homosexuals as we continue to see and encourage social progress.

Link to Original post at Rossputin.com.

Moonglow

by Joshua Sharf | 1:58 am, December 21, 2010

Risk of Government Data Breaches Should Bring Calls for Smaller Government

by PerlStalker | 12:12 am, December 21, 2010

A recent audit of the State of Colorado’s computer systems showed massive problems including the release of personal data. Is it any surprise, then, that there are so many that disapprove of large government databases such as a national ID or, in Color…

Ep 26: Government database errors soon coming to healthcare! The feds spying on you (for your own good).

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 10:40 pm, December 20, 2010

BlueCarp

Colorado Misses Out On Another Wave

by Joshua Sharf | 7:04 pm, December 20, 2010

The Wall Street Journal reports that resource-rich states are recovering quite well from the recession: Wages of workers in 10 states and the District of Columbia have more than regained ground lost during the recession, with the recovery concentrated in regions benefitting from the commodities boom and federal spending. Many of the laggards, meanwhile, are [...]

Merry Monday Media Review: Clear The Bench Colorado, Colorado Supreme Court in the news

by CTBC Director | 4:11 pm, December 20, 2010

Clear The Bench Colorado continues to make news (except in the pages of the Denver Post, which apparently continues its editorial policy of suppressing information that might upset its highest-paying – $1.6M/year – tenants) around the state in the aftermath of this year’s judicial retention elections (which gained attention not just in Colorado – again, [...]

Education Reform Stocking Stuffers

by Eddie | 3:17 pm, December 20, 2010

Kids are out of school. Christmas is 5 days away. Nobody is writing about education now. It seems like just about everybody has packed it up to go on vacation until 2011. But you get one more post from me before the holidays steal the last bit of your attention away. And it could be [...]

A Friend We All Know

by Jon Caldara | 3:01 pm, December 20, 2010

You know that one childhood friend you’ve got in your close group of friends who can’t ever seem to get anything right? He’s the guy who can’t drive anywhere without getting lost or getting a ticket. He always seems to have forgotten his wallet after you all go out for a beer and some wings. [...]

Yet ANOTHER Constitutional Fumble at the Denver Post

by Rob Natelson | 2:29 pm, December 20, 2010

The constitutional whiz kids at the Denver Post are at it again.
Their latest batch of constitutional miscues appears on page 5A of the December 20 edition, in a story on the “Repeal Amendment.” The Repeal Amendment would change the U.S Constitution to allow two-thirds of state legislatures to veto federal laws and regulations. [...]

‘High Risk’ of Cyber Security Attack, Info Leak Revealed in Recent CO Security Audit

by Michael | 11:48 am, December 20, 2010

As far as personal information goes, medical documents are perhaps among the most important–and also the most closely-held–due to privacy concerns.
When legislators push for compulsory public databases of highly sensitive information, as Colorado did this year with HB10-1330 “All-Payer Database,” the threat of information being disseminated to unknown parties, subject to hacking, or even accidental [...]

Total lunar eclipse late tonight (12/20)

by Rossputin | 9:44 am, December 20, 2010

For the first time in almost three years, there will be a total lunar eclipse tonight. Here in Colorado, it should start around 11:30 PM with “mid-totality” at 1:17 AM (Tuesday morning, technically).

According to space.com, this eclipse is particularly unusual because it coincides with the winter solstice (the shortest day of the year) for the first time since 1638.

More info here:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/20/total-lunar-eclipse-monday-night/

Link to Original post at Rossputin.com.

Should Colorado ask for a Medicaid block grant?

by Brian Schwartz | 6:00 am, December 20, 2010

Rhode Island was granted a waiver to receive its Medicaid funding as a block grant rather than a federal match for Medicaid spending. The result: The state saved $150 million in the first 18 months. Should Colorado do the same?

Men’s suits at 1910 prices! … In gold, not U.S. dollars.

by Brian T. Schwartz | 5:00 am, December 20, 2010

A man’s suit costs about the same today as it did 100 years ago. Not in dollars, but gold. For at least a century, an ounce of gold could buy you a quality man’s suit. Why tolerate our government’s monopoly on money? The Federal Reserve devalues your earnings by effectively printing more bills.

Your Tax Dollars at Work: Dept. of HHS Buys Ads on “ObamaCare” Search

by Michael | 7:32 pm, December 19, 2010

To steer away search engine users from site “hostile” to the health care reform bill, as Politico reports (via Gateway Pundit)
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has bought a Google advertisement to steer people searching for “ObamaCare” to a page that is customized to detect searchers’ locations and steer them both to local [...]

Backbone Radio, December 19, 2010: The Tea Party’s spending victory and libertarian science fiction writers

by Rossputin | 7:26 am, December 19, 2010

Audio archives for this show:

Segment 1 – Intro, News of the Week
Segment 2 – Discussing faiulre of DREAM Act and repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell with Congressman Jared Polis; the Obama-GOP tax “deal”
Segment 3 – Andrew Ian Dodge on the Tea Party and politics
Segment 4 – More with Andrew Ian Dodge, including discussion of libertarian science fiction writing
Segment 5 – Tom James, author of In the Shadow of Ares, and co-founder and manager of the Peoples Press Collective
Segment 6 – Tax policy as a moral issue

[UPDATE: I’m also going to spend some time talking about the morality of tax cuts, an issue which is making the media in recent days – following a piece I wrote for the American Spectator discussing the moral aspects of economic policy more generallly.]

With news this week that Senate Republicans were cajoled back on the spending discipline rails after nearly agreeing to a disastrous $1.1 trillion dollar “Omnibus” spending plan, one can’t help but wonder whether we’ve just seen the first major legislative victory of the Tea Party movement.

The omnibus was an earmark-filled monster which also would have funded the initial setup of the bureaucracies necessary to implement Obamacare.

When Harry Reid was forced to pull the measure on Thursday night, the nation (except for the far left) should have breathed a huge sigh of relief – not least the clerk of the Senate whom Senator Tom Coburn was going to make read all of the bill’s nearly 2000 pages.

In our second hour of Backbone Radio this week, we’ll be joined by Andrew Ian Dodge who is, among other things, the director of the Maine Tea Party and described by that state’s Lewiston Sun-Journal as a “hound of hell.” Dodge is also a contributor to Pajamas Media. We’ll speak about his expectations for the duration and intensity of the impact of the Tea Party movement and ask him about why science fiction writing seems to be such a good venue for libertarian ideas.

It should be a fascinating conversation with an interesting character, described in the article noted above as a “freelance science fiction writer, musician, blogger, cancer survivor and state coordinator for the Maine Tea Party Patriots.”

In our third hour, we’ll speak with my friend Tom James, manager and co-owner of the Peoples Press Collective, about his new book – coincidentally also science fiction, In the Shadow of Ares, currently published for the Kindle and soon to be out for the Nook (Barnes and Noble’s e-reader.)

Some words from Tom James himself about his book:

On the kid level, it’s an adventure story, where a young girl in a frontier environment (Mars, 2051) proves herself by solving a mystery. Which promptly gets her and others into a lot of trouble that she then has to think her way out of.

On the adult level, it’s an exploration of some of the economics and politics involved with colonizing Mars, featuring entrepreneurial startup companies as the good guys, and a dirigiste provisional government as the bad guys.

Please join me by listening to (and calling in to) this week’s Backbone Radio program from 5 PM to 8 PM on 710 AM KNUS in Denver and 1460 AM KZNT in Colorado Springs.

If you’re not in range of the radio waves, you should be able to listen to the show online by clicking HERE.

I hope you’ll actively participate in the conversation with me: Call the studio at 303 696 1971, e-mail me at rossputin(at)rossputin.com, or instant message from my site at http://rossputin.com or through AOL Instant messenger to screen name Rossputin.

Original post at http://backboneradio.net, online home of Backbone Radio with Ross Kaminsky.

Earmark Defeat a Victory for Transparency

by Michael | 3:26 pm, December 17, 2010

The takedown of the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill is both unprecedented and the result of a concerted effort to focus on transparency that is now assisted by public furor against pork, as Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey points out in “Transparency Killed the Earmarking Stars”:
How often do omnibus spending bills go down to defeat? [...]

A Fiscal Roadmap for Colorado, TV Style

by Jon Caldara | 2:11 pm, December 17, 2010

A Fiscal Roadmap for Colorado, TV Style

by Jon Caldara | 2:11 pm, December 17, 2010

Happy Belated 240th Birthday, Ludwig von Beethoven

by Ben DeGrow | 1:10 pm, December 17, 2010

(H/T Schroeder) Yesterday was the 240th anniversary of the birth of the great and revolutionary musical genius Ludwig von Beethoven. Because it fits my mood for today, here’s the triumphant finale to the legendary Fifth Symphony:

For past reflec…

League Stands Up for Charters vs. Unfriendly Greeley, Pueblo School Boards

by Eddie | 12:38 pm, December 17, 2010

In the end-of-the-year holiday dash, it sure looks like the Colorado League of Charter Schools has been busy. Busy standing up against the anti-charter actions of a couple local school boards.
Two cases in point. The first is an op-ed League president Jim Griffin penned for the Greeley Tribune. It came out a couple days ago [...]

The Taliban: The TRUTH About The War In Afghanistan

by Mr. Bob | 10:19 am, December 17, 2010

#GWOT #afghanistan #talibanThe reason why we are at war. So many of us forget. Those who go to fight do not forget but they are few. This video is disturbing, but a must see for people not afraid of the truth. Mr. Bob is a contributing author at the Pe…

Friday Funnies: …and a Leftist Judiciary!

by CTBC Director | 9:35 am, December 17, 2010

Welcome to the 2010 Christmas edition of the Clear The Bench Colorado Friday Funnies!
In all of the tumult, toil, and trouble of the weeks leading up to the 2010 judicial retention elections (and in the weeks following), Clear The Bench Colorado has been far too serious, falling short in our mission to amuse, in addition [...]

Michael Rogers Jr: Don’t START

by Rossputin | 8:01 am, December 17, 2010

Thanks to Mike Rogers for this blog contribution:

There has been a great deal of bluster and noise about the need to get the New START treaty ratified by the Senate during the lame duck session. Part of the argument offered for the need for haste is that the treaty will head off a renewed Cold War that is apparently waiting just around the corner if we don’t ratify the treaty by year’s end. This argument is frequently put forth with rhetorical images of school children hiding under their desks to brace for an imminent thermonuclear detonation and other anachronistic imagery from the height of the cold war in the 50s and 60s. We also get the vague and murmured threats from Putin that it would be “dumb” not to ratify the treaty and that such failure would force Russia to rebuild and stockpile its nuclear forces. All of it is utter nonsense.

In the first place Russia is in no position economically to build and maintain Cold War era stockpiles of nuclear weapons and their associated delivery systems nor would a failure to ratify the current New START give them any cause to do so. The United States has all but unilaterally reduced its nuclear stockpiles by 2/3 since 2000 which it announced it was doing when it effectively announced the end of The Cold War. This unilateral announcement was the impetus for the last START treaty, which has now expired, when Putin realized he was missing out on a large global diplomatic opportunity and made overtures to enter new treaty negotiations with the US in order to avoid a ‘Nuclear Peace Gap’ (as General Turgidson may have expressed it).

In those negotiations the Russians attempted to introduce a linkage between strategic offensive forces and defensive missile defense forces as well as a host of restrictions on what America could do with denuclearized delivery vehicles, how our nuclear sites would be classified and labyrinthine counting rules that would force even greater reductions on the US’s superior long range forces. Two significant features of these demands were to economically advantage Russia in maintaining forces large enough to cling to superpower status and disadvantage the US in the ways its forces are counted, based and deployed while benefiting Russia in those same ways and inhibiting US verification. These tactics are nothing new when dealing with Russia on nuclear issues, which is why the Bush administration saw them coming and told Russia that while we enjoy the idea of a treaty we don’t need one that badly. Putin and company acquiesced and a more reasonable treaty emerged.

Something interesting and somewhat disconcerting to note is that none of these negotiations takes into account Russia’s tactical or regional nuclear weapons which remain a significant and largely unknown force that can threaten or strike all but her most distant neighbors.

Enter The Obama Administration

When President Obama took office he did so on a wave of discontent and blame for all things Bush. Not wanting to waste an opportunity to make a global name for himself and discredit the Bush administration further he went immediately to the Russians with a ‘reset button’ and a willingness to get rolled in the cause of nuclear weapons reduction. Not only did the Obama negotiators give away the farm that the Bush administration had refused to give away but they went beyond that by needlessly further reducing our warheads and agreeing to a kind of parity of numbers that smacks of the absurd.

While everyone can agree that the two greatest threats humans pose to themselves are thermonuclear war and biological war, a naïve ‘no nukes’ policy such that any reduction scheme is accepted as good is a dangerous and misguided approach.

There is a long list if advocates from Bush to Kissinger who have supported the signing of this treaty, who are of the view that all arms control is good arms control and all reductions are good reductions since they dial us back from the brink of destruction. It may seem to be a simple truth but it is neither true nor simple. The threat of annihilation has saved the world many times over from global conflict since the end of WWII. In other words, US nuclear superiority has saved the world from annihilation. In fact the most dangerous times in history have been when that advantage was lost or perceived to be lost.

A not-so-secret secret of why the cold war came to an end was that the US went from a kind of disadvantaged parity with the Soviets that was brought on by the misguided Détente policies to a significant First Strike advantage through development and deployment of the MX (Peacekeeper), Trident I & II, and the Pershing II medium range system in forward deployment in Europe.

The accuracy and firepower of these systems radically altered the balance of power in a way that put the Soviets hopelessly at risk both militarily and economically and forced an end to the Cold War. Maintaining some reasonable facsimile of that strategic advantage and capability is in the best interest of peace, stability and a potential reemergence of an adventurous Russia in the future.

Many argue that we need the cooperation of Russia to counter the many emerging threats in the world and that this treaty will help relations with Russia and induce that cooperation. While they may no longer be (or at least at present) our mortal enemy, to date no amount of capitulation on nuclear forces has brought such cooperation. In fact Russia continues to support with military and technology transfer countries hostile to US interests and the peace and stability of the world. Syria, Venezuela and Iran have all received and continue to receive destabilizing weapons and technology from Russia even as we have traded away promises of defensive missile systems to our allies in the face of Russian demands and threats.

There is little doubt that canceling plans for deployment of missile shields in Eastern Europe was part of the still secret negotiations with Russia on the New START treaty. I say still secret because to date the Obama administration has refused to release the negotiation records to the full Senate for review. They (the Senate) are being urged to hurry up and ratify a treaty by which they have little or no idea what they are committing the US to in the future. Sound familiar? ‘You have to pass it to find out what’s in it’..

The treaty is probably a bad idea all around (unless you’re Russia) and should be scrapped in its entirety. It is obvious that it disadvantages the US with regard to Russia but it also does not in any way take into account the realities of a growing military threat from China, North Korea and Iran, and it ties our hands needlessly in converting delivery systems for nuclear weapons into conventional weapons that could be used to deter or fight future conflicts with enemies besides Russia.

There is little risk if any that Russia will reignite a cold war and begin the massive buildup of nuclear weapons in the absence of this treaty. In fact I would be willing to wager they will, after making some noise, return to the table with a renewed interest in negotiating a practical treaty, perhaps grumbling a bit to themselves that they failed to roll American lawmakers the way they rolled the inept President Obama.

——————–

For your further reading, the Treaty and Protocol documents:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/140035.pdf

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/140047.pdf

Link to Original post at Rossputin.com.

Coburn Publishes List of Earmarks in Omnibus Spending Bill [Updated]

by PerlStalker | 11:14 pm, December 16, 2010

From Ace, Senator Tom Coburn has put together a spreadsheet of all the pork requests in the Omnibus spending bill. I’ve embedded a version of the spreadsheet below. You can download a much nicer version of the spreadsheet from Coburn’s site. Coburn’s s…

Harry The Grinch is Stealing Our Money….again

by Mr. Bob | 2:17 pm, December 16, 2010

Another Insult to the American People: LINK——————————————————————————–

Cast Your Votes for the Best and Worst K-12 Education Developments in 2010

by Eddie | 12:40 pm, December 16, 2010

What are the best and worst developments in K-12 education for 2010? You can chime in and make your selections on a poll sponsored by Education Next — based on a list released by Stanford University’s Koret Task Force on K-12 Education.
Ten items are available for you to rate either as one of the two [...]

The Citizens’ Budget Storms Public Television!

by Jon Caldara | 11:13 am, December 16, 2010

How do you close a billion dollar state budget gap? Tune in to Devil’s Advocate this Friday as I am joined by Penn Pfiffner, project director of the Independence Institute’s recently released “Citizens’ Budget” project, to lay out the road map to balancing the Colorado state budget and moving towards sustainable state government [...]

Another Insult to the American People

by Al Maurer | 10:45 am, December 16, 2010

When ordinary Americans are finished celebrating the holidays, they will find that Harry the Grinch has stolen the country.

Giron to Propose DREAM Act in Colorado

by PerlStalker | 8:45 am, December 16, 2010

From the Pueblo Chieftain:

A Southern Colorado lawmaker is resurrecting legislation that has failed in the past, aiming to grant in-state college tuition to high school graduates who are not legal U.S. citizens.

Freshman Sen. Angela Giron, D-Puebl…

Chris Horner: Throwing Us Under the Omnibus

by Rossputin | 7:19 am, December 16, 2010

A few brief thoughts as I take the day off from serious blogging to celebrate my daughter’s 5th birthday on board a pirate ship in Puerto Vallarta.

As the WSJ noted yesterday in a piece outlining the many bad pieces of legislation Harry Reid wants to jam through the lame duck session of the Senate, the omnibus government funding bill “should offend Senators who claim to have heard the voters on November 2.”

As I and others have mentioned before, the omnibus is in large part a way for Democrats to create at least a year of funding for the infrastructure necessary to implement the many Obamacare bureaucracies while knowing that spending would not get through the GOP-majority House coming in a few weeks. It’s certainly Reid’s last gasp at sneaking through other “Progressive” (read “anti-prosperity”) priorities.

Featured Posts

Follow PPC

Search

WayIn

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Advertise Here!

Categories

Archives

Meta

Blogroll

Contributors