Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, October 12, 2011
2012 / Politics Newt Gingrich Is an Asshole. And a Fascist.
Posted by Goldy on Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 8:41 AM
One thing that came off again and again during last night's Republican debate is that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is an asshole, but perhaps never so much as when he called for imprisoning Democratic Rep. Barney Frank and former Sen. Chris Dodd:
“If you want to put people in jail, you ought to start with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd,” Gingrich said in the debate. His remark came after the candidates were asked about the lack of criminal prosecutions of Wall Street officials in the wake of the financial crisis.
Honestly. What an asshole.
But here's the thing. Gingrich didn't appear to be joking. This is a guy who's campaigning for president by calling for the imprisonment of opposition political leaders... exactly the sort of thing we see in banana republics and fascist dictatorships. It's the kind of high-stakes political hardball—lose the election, lose your freedom or life—that destroys democracies.
Yeah, sure, I've heard Democratic rank and file call for the prosecution of Dick Cheney, George Bush and other suspected war criminals... but these calls for retribution aren't coming from people who are running for fucking president. They're not former House speakers. They're not on television every week or two being paraded as one of the leaders of their party.
No, Gingrich can't win. But I'm telling you, there's a dangerous, fascistic streak in American politics—and in the Republican Party in particular—that could quickly turn this nation in on itself in response to a major crisis.
1
...there's a dangerous, fascistic streak in American politics—and in the Republican Party in particular—that could quickly turn this nation in on itself in response to a major crisis.
You're about a decade late with this one.
You're about a decade late with this one.
3
thats your evidence of fascism? how about the fact that taxpayers bailed out wallstreet? hows that for evidence of fascism in america?
4
Newt Gingrich is an asshole? That can't be right. You must be thinking of a different Newt Gingrich.
5
Newt Gingrich may be a fascist asshole. Fortunately nobody pays much attention to Newt. Even when he was Speaker of the House nobody really took him seriously.
6
His comment about prostate testing was as sleazy as they come. He knows that problems from false positives and unnecessary treatments outweigh risks of delaying testing.
http://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_ar…
http://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_ar…
7
yeah, the problem is obviously that congress over-regulated investment banking AFTER the bailouts. they really believe this shit, too.
8
I just watched the biography of Franklin D. Rooseveldt from American Masters, PBS, for the third time and the paralells between then and now are uncanny. Especially with regards to remedies for the wholesale theft of American's money and Wall Street excesses. The right wing has changed not one wit. Not one. Mean, greedy, foolish, insolated from American suffering and wedded to the failed belief that rogue Capitalism is all we need no matter how many failures that entails.
9
Welcome to America Goldy!! I'm surprised you just realized there is an undercurrent of fascism right under the surface in this country. It just needs the right environment to come out of it's closet.
Perhaps you should read "It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis (printed in the mid 1930's)
Perhaps you should read "It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis (printed in the mid 1930's)
10
@8, things have changed quite a bit since then actually. Back in the market crash that created the great depression. Back then some brokers and bankers who caused the mess had the dignity to jump to their death. Sadly no such dignity in today's banking system.
11
Most of the Tea Partiers, and all the Fox faithful believe Barney single-handedly caused the global financial meltdown.
13
He also said this about the Occupy Wall Street protesters:
"We have had a strain of hostility to free enterprise and frankly, a strain of hostility to classic America starting in our academic institutions and spreading across this country and I regard the Wall Street protesters as a natural outcome of a bad education system teaching them really dumb ideas."
That's right, blame the teachers.
Protesting IS classic America.
"We have had a strain of hostility to free enterprise and frankly, a strain of hostility to classic America starting in our academic institutions and spreading across this country and I regard the Wall Street protesters as a natural outcome of a bad education system teaching them really dumb ideas."
That's right, blame the teachers.
Protesting IS classic America.
14
Ooh @9, there's going to be a staged reading of Lewis' theatrical version of "It Can't Happen Hear" at MOHAI on November 24th!
15
@10 Back then the government didn't bail out Wall St either. After the crash of '29 Herbert Hoover followed the Ron Paul approach of 'let the banks fail.' Look how well that worked out.
16
Also, seriously, there's calling for prosecution for war crimes and then there's calling for jailing legislators for legislating.
17
@10 And watch as the corrupt right wing SCOTUS dismantles our laws piece by piece, starting with healthcare, the way did then, too.
18
@13,
No, you've got it wrong. Protesting = "classic America" ONLY when it's old, white, conservatives protesting against the government in an effort to roll-back progressive legislation. Protesting against the gluttonous excesses of greedy Capitalists who've sold our economy down the river in their quest for short-term profit = "dumb idea".
No, you've got it wrong. Protesting = "classic America" ONLY when it's old, white, conservatives protesting against the government in an effort to roll-back progressive legislation. Protesting against the gluttonous excesses of greedy Capitalists who've sold our economy down the river in their quest for short-term profit = "dumb idea".
19
"suspected war criminals"? SUSPECTED? Are you shitting me, Goldy? Both Bush and Cheney have PUBLICLY admitted to authorizing water-boarding. Water-boarding IS torture. Torture IS a war crime. It’s not fucking libelous to accuse these fuckers of a crime they themselves have copped to, jesus christ this isn’t a topic to dance around. Add to that, WTF, do you not think it would be appropriate for Democrats running for President to call for the prosecution of admitted war criminals?
20
i’m joining the chorus here, I know .. but seriously did you really mean to say that putting Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush on trial for war crimes would be an act of political retribution?
21
Weimar you worried Goldy? Freedom loving Americans would never putsch their fellow citizens around so violently.
22
I just popped ahead 20 years....oh dear oh dear oh dear....
But I don't know if it's a fixed point in time for what is coming...oh dear oh dear....
But I don't know if it's a fixed point in time for what is coming...oh dear oh dear....
23
Supreme has a good point. Greenspan's ridicuously low rates early in the '00s stacked up the house of cards. Let's throw that scrawny, pencil-necked fucker in jail.
25
I recently talked to a tea partier who advocated dismantling the Department of Education and jailing all its employees. So yes, that sort of talk does get bandied about in certain circles these days.
26
fuckin' duh. the republican party is a fascist/nihilist alliance & yes, if they could get away w/ it, they would jail anyone who disagreed w/ them & was deemed an influential figure (and maybe alot more people than that). and the democrats offer... oh well. yeah, democracy is dead in america.
28
@9 and 14 - sinclair lewis is my favorite author. i read "it can't happen here" for the first time during the mid-terms. you know how each chapter begins with a long quotation of windrip's? there were at least a couple of them that michele bachmann had said during her own campaigning, nearly verbatim. and you KNOW that woman never read lewis. she actually believes that shit. FUCKING FRIGHTENING.
29
Well...yeah...all repubs are fascist jackholes (that's a given), although a Mitt-Newt ticket sounds auditorily interesting...kinda like a "mit der crap" sandwich, or a garbled way to voice, "minute" -- as in small, miniscule (not the time segment description).
But seriously Goldy, you should be commenting on the Obama Comedy Week, or That Was The Week That Was:
President Obama stands before the nation and claims that the banks haven't broke any laws. (Saaaaaaay whaaaaaaaat! Try millions of felonies -- false affidavits filed, try millions of criminal infracations and false reporting events regarding the Internal Revenue Code, try millions of violations of the Uniform Commercial Code.
Next, we observe Attorney General Eric Holder pontificating on assassins. Now isn't that rich?
Holder, who made his big bucks at Coving and Burling defending Chiquita for hiring assassins, and oil companies in West Africa for hiring assassins; seems Mr. Holder should know the people who tend to hire assassins --- wonder if anyone bothered to ask them if he knew the guilty party who hired the assassin responsible for the murder of Mr. Wales?
Also, wasn't this the week when Obama discovered the lack of jobs out there?
For your musical enjoyment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfkYdpX_O…
And if you wish to observe Elizabeth Warren in kick ass mode:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu61aU4N8…
But seriously Goldy, you should be commenting on the Obama Comedy Week, or That Was The Week That Was:
President Obama stands before the nation and claims that the banks haven't broke any laws. (Saaaaaaay whaaaaaaaat! Try millions of felonies -- false affidavits filed, try millions of criminal infracations and false reporting events regarding the Internal Revenue Code, try millions of violations of the Uniform Commercial Code.
Next, we observe Attorney General Eric Holder pontificating on assassins. Now isn't that rich?
Holder, who made his big bucks at Coving and Burling defending Chiquita for hiring assassins, and oil companies in West Africa for hiring assassins; seems Mr. Holder should know the people who tend to hire assassins --- wonder if anyone bothered to ask them if he knew the guilty party who hired the assassin responsible for the murder of Mr. Wales?
Also, wasn't this the week when Obama discovered the lack of jobs out there?
For your musical enjoyment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfkYdpX_O…
And if you wish to observe Elizabeth Warren in kick ass mode:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu61aU4N8…
30
Newt is an asshole?
Not news. He can re-package and re-do himself all he wants, but to me, he'll always the creep who served his wife with divorce papers during her chemo...in the hospital...trading up for a newer model (that last part he's done twice).
Why anyone would be willing to hear what he has to say about anything (but especially social issues) is beyond me.
Not news. He can re-package and re-do himself all he wants, but to me, he'll always the creep who served his wife with divorce papers during her chemo...in the hospital...trading up for a newer model (that last part he's done twice).
Why anyone would be willing to hear what he has to say about anything (but especially social issues) is beyond me.
31
Had he been around in 1932, Newt would undoubtedly have called for the jailing of Senator Glass and Congressman Steagall.
Do I have to run for POTUS to call for the imprisonment of Newton Leroy Gingrich?
Do I have to run for POTUS to call for the imprisonment of Newton Leroy Gingrich?
32
@24 Sorry that I'm not capable of the studied nuance of a Jay Bybee or a John Yoo that would allow me to frame government ordered torture as anything but a fucking war crime, something clearly articulated in the Geneva Conventions, which as signed treaties carry the full force of US law, Ken.
But you have a point about the one track mind thing. It's just really hard for me to get past the precedent the Obama Administration has set by refusing to even investigate the previous administrations admitted gross abuses of power. It's so unsettling in fact, that I will never let it go.
But you have a point about the one track mind thing. It's just really hard for me to get past the precedent the Obama Administration has set by refusing to even investigate the previous administrations admitted gross abuses of power. It's so unsettling in fact, that I will never let it go.
34
Jesus people. Talk about a fucking echo chamber in here.
You're all racing-around the cul de sac of outrage, with seemingly no exit ramp of legislation, leadership or strategy to win.
You're pissed. (We get it.) It's someone else's fault. (Partially.) The right kind of government will save us. (Not a fucking chance.)
Three years into the current administration and there is STILL no serious, long-term policy recommendation from the Dems regarding the economy. We've been plenty hopped-up on stimuli and programs, but nothing that would come CLOSE to being an economic policy. The current "Jobs Plan" is at best a cynical political ploy to force the Republicans to vote "against the poor" in a silly tit-for-tat.
Too many liberals see being pissed-off as an end-state of its own. As if someone is going to save your asses from your various and persistent states of discontent. Conversely, the more conservative types took their anger (the tea party, metaphorically) and used it to initiate the change they wanted (less government, economic liberty).
(Mike check) Attention Democrats: The government isn't going to do a fucking thing for you. By its very nature, government only has governments interest in mind. Please stop pretending that history isn't providing you good guidance on this point. Forfucksakes.
Attention Occupy Seattle (and its apologists): The Tea Party is kicking your ass, because your DESERVE to have you ass kicked. The Tea Party members ARE part of the 99%, but unlike the blathering classes on the left hand side of the 99%, have resolved to actually DO something. Unless and until you're willing to actually DO something (that doesn't involve protesting or waiting for an ass-saving), please do not expect a change in your circumstance.
By now you're coming the realization, forecasted last week, of the senselessness of your strategy and irrelevance of your action.
Instead of being petulant children, perhaps its a good time to look at the world you're in (competitive, global, dynamic) and decide what you --- AS AN INDIVIDUAL -- are going to do to compete, adapt and thrive.
We're only "all in this together" to the extent that we're all individual agents in a market that should be fair, transparent and fluid. Other than that, we don't want to be forced to join your income-sharing pitty party.
More...
Jesus people. Talk about a fucking echo chamber in here.
You're all racing-around the cul de sac of outrage, with seemingly no exit ramp of legislation, leadership or strategy to win.
You're pissed. (We get it.) It's someone else's fault. (Partially.) The right kind of government will save us. (Not a fucking chance.)
Three years into the current administration and there is STILL no serious, long-term policy recommendation from the Dems regarding the economy. We've been plenty hopped-up on stimuli and programs, but nothing that would come CLOSE to being an economic policy. The current "Jobs Plan" is at best a cynical political ploy to force the Republicans to vote "against the poor" in a silly tit-for-tat.
Too many liberals see being pissed-off as an end-state of its own. As if someone is going to save your asses from your various and persistent states of discontent. Conversely, the more conservative types took their anger (the tea party, metaphorically) and used it to initiate the change they wanted (less government, economic liberty).
(Mike check) Attention Democrats: The government isn't going to do a fucking thing for you. By its very nature, government only has governments interest in mind. Please stop pretending that history isn't providing you good guidance on this point. Forfucksakes.
Attention Occupy Seattle (and its apologists): The Tea Party is kicking your ass, because your DESERVE to have you ass kicked. The Tea Party members ARE part of the 99%, but unlike the blathering classes on the left hand side of the 99%, have resolved to actually DO something. Unless and until you're willing to actually DO something (that doesn't involve protesting or waiting for an ass-saving), please do not expect a change in your circumstance.
By now you're coming the realization, forecasted last week, of the senselessness of your strategy and irrelevance of your action.
Instead of being petulant children, perhaps its a good time to look at the world you're in (competitive, global, dynamic) and decide what you --- AS AN INDIVIDUAL -- are going to do to compete, adapt and thrive.
We're only "all in this together" to the extent that we're all individual agents in a market that should be fair, transparent and fluid. Other than that, we don't want to be forced to join your income-sharing pitty party.
37
And I find your desire for "Structure" disturbing.
From you're own reference source:
"Structure" refers to those factors (such as social class, religion, gender, ethnicity, customs, etc) which seem to limit the individual by a pre-organized perception from the social structure itself that vastly determines and influences the opportunities that individuals have."
Are you really calling for more social structure?
America was founded upon, and will be forever governed by, the principle of moral free agency. We don't have a governmentally-mandated obligation to each other, as our liberty is a fundamental human right. We do have a moral obligation to our fellow man, and each persons subscription to that social contract (beyond assuring each others liberty and supporting the general welfare) is a matter for the individual --- not a bunch of freeloaders who think that the property of others should be a collectivized resource.
From you're own reference source:
"Structure" refers to those factors (such as social class, religion, gender, ethnicity, customs, etc) which seem to limit the individual by a pre-organized perception from the social structure itself that vastly determines and influences the opportunities that individuals have."
Are you really calling for more social structure?
America was founded upon, and will be forever governed by, the principle of moral free agency. We don't have a governmentally-mandated obligation to each other, as our liberty is a fundamental human right. We do have a moral obligation to our fellow man, and each persons subscription to that social contract (beyond assuring each others liberty and supporting the general welfare) is a matter for the individual --- not a bunch of freeloaders who think that the property of others should be a collectivized resource.
38
@37 I'm not 'calling' for anything, the question is do you recognize that structure (as you have just laid it out above) is at least as much as a factor in the status quo as agency? If not, why not?
39
@38
My point is that the "Structure" that Occupy Seattle is inclined to blame for everything (Tea Baggers, Wall Street Elites, Republicans, Christians) is something they simply want to replace with other "Structures" (Bureaucrats, anointed "Progressives, self-avowed "Intellectuals", and such.) So anyone who wants to play the status quo replacement game through group assignment, is simply perpetuating a regressive systen. All that does is lead to the diminishment of Liberty.
@38
My point is that the "Structure" that Occupy Seattle is inclined to blame for everything (Tea Baggers, Wall Street Elites, Republicans, Christians) is something they simply want to replace with other "Structures" (Bureaucrats, anointed "Progressives, self-avowed "Intellectuals", and such.) So anyone who wants to play the status quo replacement game through group assignment, is simply perpetuating a regressive systen. All that does is lead to the diminishment of Liberty.
40
@39 Well you didn't name a single structure there, only agents of particular structures.
The OWS movement is concerned with improving the status quo through changes in the structure, such as altering the tax code and greater government regulation over the financial sector (eg. Glass-Steagall). You see, it's not ultimately about removing the 'Wall Street Elites,' (although many people do call- rightly- for the arrest of those who have broken laws) it's about restructuring Wall Street so that a calamity like the 2008 meltdown cannot happen again- no matter which 'elite' is in charge.
Do you see the difference there? It's about changing something larger than even the most powerful of individuals.
The OWS movement is concerned with improving the status quo through changes in the structure, such as altering the tax code and greater government regulation over the financial sector (eg. Glass-Steagall). You see, it's not ultimately about removing the 'Wall Street Elites,' (although many people do call- rightly- for the arrest of those who have broken laws) it's about restructuring Wall Street so that a calamity like the 2008 meltdown cannot happen again- no matter which 'elite' is in charge.
Do you see the difference there? It's about changing something larger than even the most powerful of individuals.
41
No, the OWS is only interested in creating a new structure (including customs like collectivism and consensus, and social classes like liberal arts grads) whose agent is government -- to impose a new status quo from which the individual cannot escape. (Witness: The federal requirement to engage in the commercial purchase of healthcare coverage, with mandated coverage.)
Those who want to social engineer (forming and manipulating structures), intruding for the sake of our "best interests" forget that the country was organized and constituted around the primacy of the individual -- liberty -- the right to be left-alone by government and others.
The OWS types insist that the game is a struggle between structures. In fact, the game is about Agency, a society that assures and rewards people for looking after themselves, with regard but not a govt'-enforced obligation to others (who should be similarly assured and rewarded for their individual enterprise.)
The paucity of support for the Occupiers (aka "The Hundred Hippy March") suggests the lack of enthusiasm the true 99% have for collective action through co-opted governmental programming.
No, the OWS is only interested in creating a new structure (including customs like collectivism and consensus, and social classes like liberal arts grads) whose agent is government -- to impose a new status quo from which the individual cannot escape. (Witness: The federal requirement to engage in the commercial purchase of healthcare coverage, with mandated coverage.)
Those who want to social engineer (forming and manipulating structures), intruding for the sake of our "best interests" forget that the country was organized and constituted around the primacy of the individual -- liberty -- the right to be left-alone by government and others.
The OWS types insist that the game is a struggle between structures. In fact, the game is about Agency, a society that assures and rewards people for looking after themselves, with regard but not a govt'-enforced obligation to others (who should be similarly assured and rewarded for their individual enterprise.)
The paucity of support for the Occupiers (aka "The Hundred Hippy March") suggests the lack of enthusiasm the true 99% have for collective action through co-opted governmental programming.
42
@41 Again, you misuse terms that have specific definitions- agency, as we have established, is individual choice, roughly analogous to the philosophical concept of free will. A government cannot be an 'agent.' You even give up the game when you write:
A society is a structure, societies are collectives of individuals that contain larger coercive forces, for example: the social expectation that self-interest is a positive behavior. Do you see? You have incorporated structure without even realizing it!
In fact, the game is about Agency, a society that assures and rewards people for looking after themselves... [emphasis mine]
A society is a structure, societies are collectives of individuals that contain larger coercive forces, for example: the social expectation that self-interest is a positive behavior. Do you see? You have incorporated structure without even realizing it!
43
No. You're confusing "agency" (the sociological principle of individualism) with "agent" (something that acts on behalf of another). In fact ALL that government IS is an agent of interests.
Please, try and keep up.
So yes -- government can be an agent. As in the constitution of the U.S. government -- what the hell, let's make that a capital "C" -- it's role is to be an "agent" of our "agency."
Where the Occupiers (a "structure") make their misstep is to assume that other "agents" are compelled by a broader structure (citizenship) to take care of their college loans, hobby jobs, artistic interests, and other such things -- decidedly not part of America's contract with its citizens.
In short: No group's desire to share someone else's private resources and compel their charity, trumps the rights of any individual to be left alone. Under the Constitutional principle of Liberty, an individual's right to freedom of assembly also -- means freedom FROM assembly.
No. You're confusing "agency" (the sociological principle of individualism) with "agent" (something that acts on behalf of another). In fact ALL that government IS is an agent of interests.
Please, try and keep up.
So yes -- government can be an agent. As in the constitution of the U.S. government -- what the hell, let's make that a capital "C" -- it's role is to be an "agent" of our "agency."
Where the Occupiers (a "structure") make their misstep is to assume that other "agents" are compelled by a broader structure (citizenship) to take care of their college loans, hobby jobs, artistic interests, and other such things -- decidedly not part of America's contract with its citizens.
In short: No group's desire to share someone else's private resources and compel their charity, trumps the rights of any individual to be left alone. Under the Constitutional principle of Liberty, an individual's right to freedom of assembly also -- means freedom FROM assembly.
44
@43 Again, your definitions fray to the point where they become too broad. This discussion cannot continue if you do not adhere to a coherent theory. Your first use of the word 'agent' conflates the concept (not principle, by the way) of agency with a more colloquial usage.
The protesters are not a structure in and of themselves either, the movement may qualify, but not the protesters.
The protesters are not a structure in and of themselves either, the movement may qualify, but not the protesters.
45
And conversely your argument has frayed to the point of arguing technicals.
Indeed I meant the "principle," defined as "A proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or a chain of reasoning." Yes. Principle.
As for whether the Occupiers or the movement are a structure, please note (above) that I followed Occupiers with a parenthetical "structure" in quote marks, to make that distinction.
No. We don't need to continue, as your argument has devolved to asinine nit-picking.
Game
Set
Match
Indeed I meant the "principle," defined as "A proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or a chain of reasoning." Yes. Principle.
As for whether the Occupiers or the movement are a structure, please note (above) that I followed Occupiers with a parenthetical "structure" in quote marks, to make that distinction.
No. We don't need to continue, as your argument has devolved to asinine nit-picking.
Game
Set
Match
47
Andrew Sullivan aptly described Gingrich as a "large, gaseous asshole." That's better, don't you think?
48
Just for the terminally stupid-
We accept the notion of innocent until proven guilty in the United States. Many on Wall Street and in Congress skirted the law, often aggressively. But absent prosecution and conviction they didn't break the law.
Same goes for political figures whether you like them or not. Obama, for instance, is a callow inexperience fool, though an educated and intelligent one. He's incapable of leadership and blames others for that failure (see the constant blaming of republicans for his policy intiatives failing to pass legislative muster.) But he isn't a criminal and he needn't be prosecuted for his ineptitude, he's just a terribly bad president with a lot of left wing nutbar notions.
Gingrich was comparing the stupid cries for Wall Street executives to
be tried for imaginary crimes to the very real role that Frank and others on your side of the aisle had in this debacle. You can disagree with the analysis, but cries of fascism just show Goldstein as the empty hack he is.
We accept the notion of innocent until proven guilty in the United States. Many on Wall Street and in Congress skirted the law, often aggressively. But absent prosecution and conviction they didn't break the law.
Same goes for political figures whether you like them or not. Obama, for instance, is a callow inexperience fool, though an educated and intelligent one. He's incapable of leadership and blames others for that failure (see the constant blaming of republicans for his policy intiatives failing to pass legislative muster.) But he isn't a criminal and he needn't be prosecuted for his ineptitude, he's just a terribly bad president with a lot of left wing nutbar notions.
Gingrich was comparing the stupid cries for Wall Street executives to
be tried for imaginary crimes to the very real role that Frank and others on your side of the aisle had in this debacle. You can disagree with the analysis, but cries of fascism just show Goldstein as the empty hack he is.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Outside the Gay Bar by Dan Savage
-
Lunchtime Quickie: Cyclist vs Car by Kelly O
-
Sunday Morning News by Riya Bhattacharjee
-
SL Letter of the Day: Lying Liars by Dan Savage
-
Slog Bible Study: Exodus 32:24-29 by Goldy
-
Conservative GOP Arizona Sheriff—and Mitt Romney AZ Campaign Co-Chair—Pledges to Deport Illegal Immigrants by Dan Savage
-
What Did an ESPN Blogger call the Asian American Baller Lin? by Charles Mudede
-
Walmart Tries to Pay Workers in Walmart Vouchers by Paul Constant
-
Why I'm Suing Attorney James Egan by Pete Holmes
-
Pharmacy Can Refuse Women Emergency Contraceptives, Judge Rules by Cienna Madrid
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (48) RSS