One of the nicest things about being a conservative is that you don’t have to say really stupid things just to establish your bona fides the way that liberals do..
For instance, ever since 1987, when Al Sharpton came to prominence by trashing the NYPD on behalf of teenage liar extraordinaire Tawana Brawley, he has spent a quarter of a century shaking down corporations just like his pal Jesse Jackson, threatening boycotts if he isn’t paid the customary 30 pieces of silver; neglecting to pay his income taxes; and inciting violence which, on more than one occasion, has led to black mobs killing New York Jews. But, during a recent appearance on The Factor, Geraldo Rivera insisted that Sharpton is a great civil rights leader.
Compared to whom, I wish Bill O’Reilly had asked. Louis Farrakhan? David Duke? Eric Holder?
The fact is, when you look at the likes of Sharpton, Jackson, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Sheila Jackson Lee, Frederica Wilson and the various officers of the NAACP, you realize that “civil rights leader” has become an oxymoron which should never be uttered in polite society.
Denise Ilitch, the daughter of Little Caesar’s founders Mike and Marian Ilitch, hosted a one million dollar pizza party in Detroit as a fund-raising event for Barack Obama. When someone asked her if pizza was really going to be the entree, she said it would, “But we’ll be serving it on sterling silver plates.” That’s what Obama’s left-wing one-percenters call getting in touch with their inner ninety-nine percenters.
In any case, conservatives, the next time you feel like ordering a Little Caesar pizza, you might wish to keep in mind where your money is going.
When I heard Jay Carney insisting that a leader “must be judged on his actions, not his empty words and promises,” I wondered if he had begun drinking on the job. Then I realized he was referring to Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, not to Barack Obama. By the way, am I the only person who has begun to regard Mr. Carney as our own Baghdad Bob?
Recently, when the giant lottery reached $600 million, I was one of those people who purchased a lottery ticket. When I didn’t win, I actually breathed a momentary sigh of relief. I simply couldn’t imagine how I would have dealt with such an enormous amount of money. I mean, you can’t simply stick it under your mattress. Overnight, you have to start dealing with financial advisors and accountants, setting aside great chunks of time to meet with these people and make major decisions about where to put the dough and when to move it, not to mention all those people who suddenly show up, promising to be your best friend if only you’ll write them a check.
Simultaneously, along with the realization that I am simply not equipped to deal with that sort of financial responsibility, it occurred to me that neither is Obama. That’s why he has added nearly six trillion dollars to our national debt, and wants to keep adding to it.
Iknow that those on the Left pride themselves not only on their compassion and on holding the deed to the moral high ground, but also to having brains so enormous that they can barely make it through doorways. Well, it ain’t necessarily so.
For instance, while speaking at Al Sharpton’s National Action Network convention in Washington, D.C., Attorney General Eric Holder said this to his host: “Thank you for your partnership, your friendship and your tireless efforts to speak out for the voiceless, to stand up for the powerless, and to shine a light on the problems we must solve, and the promises we must fulfill.”
You would have thought he was praising some great humanitarian. Instead, he was paying homage to the man who got his start as a publicity whore back in 1987, when he accused white cops of having raped a black teenager, who had only made the accusation as a way to conceal from her mother the fact that she had spent the weekend shacked up with her boyfriend. Sharpton followed that up by singling out a couple of New York Jews for street justice. Predictably, they were subsequently killed by black mobs.
More recently, Rev. Sharpton, who now hosts a show on MSNBC, was down in Sanford, Florida, and once again, in concert with the Black Panthers, he was inciting racial violence.
As Bernard Goldberg put it in a recent article devoted to Sharpton’s litany of sins, “This kind of nonsense gives cynicism a bad name.”
Joe Biden, who is busy serving as Obama’s consigliore, admitted, “I never had an interest in being a mayor because that’s a real job. You have to produce. That’s why I was able to be a Senator for 36 years.” So, as a reward for being lazy as well as stupid, he winds up being the man a heartbeat away from the Oval Office. Still, while he’s right about his own deficiencies, he still manages to be wrong when it comes to mayors, as proven on a daily basis by the likes of Michael Bloomberg, Antonio Villaraigosa and Rahm Emanuel.
Recently, while delivering a speech at Alabama A&M, Louis Farrakhan told an adoring crowd that Jesus Christ had been a black Muslim. He also took the time to refer to Jews as “a synagogue of Satan” and accused white Republicans of praying for Obama’s death. I wasn’t too surprised that the predominantly black student audience cheered his words, but I was a bit taken aback to learn that he’d been invited down by the A&M Poetry Club and the A&M Democrats. Frankly, I would have expected better from the poets.
My head came close to exploding when Hilary Rosen took Ann Romney to task for never having been a member of the work force. For one thing, anyone who thinks that raising five boys is easier than being a liberal flack clearly has straw for brains. For another, Ms. Rosen is a lesbian. I have no bone to pick with lesbians, but I can’t deny that I find it ludicrous when the likes of Hilary Rosen and Rosie O’Donnell take it upon themselves to lecture American women on how they should live their lives.
Dogma – a prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group; a belief system that remains largely unchallenged.
Sometimes dictionary definitions can seem vague or esoteric. But as it pertains to understanding President Obama and his devotees, it’s best to try and understand them through the lenses of left-wing dogma.
And the Anne Romney has “never worked a day in her life” flap is just the latest example of left-wing dogma colliding with mainstream America. Granted the strategic insulting of Mrs. Romney last week originated from Hillary Rosen, a liberal Democrat pundit, and not President Obama himself (although Ms. Rosen claims that she’s received numerous calls from the White House echoing support for her efforts to malign Mitt Romney’s wife). Yet it in the week prior, President Obama noted at a White House forum on women that in the early days of his marriage and career, he and his wife Michelle didn’t “have the luxury for her not to work.”
To those of us in “fly over country,” it may seem far-fetched to believe that two graduates of elite private east coast universities and an Ivy League law school, and who are stalwarts in what they call the “pro choice” political agenda, were left struggling without any economic choices when they started a family. But this is to view matters in overly literal, concrete terms. On the left side of the aisle, dogma comes first; reality is secondary, and one’s perception of reality is always shaped by that dogma.
Thus, the attitude reflected by President Obama and Hillary Rosen is illustrative of at least a couple of those “prescribed doctrines” understood to be “unquestionably true.” For one, women never freely choose to not be on a career track. Male oppression keeps women out of the marketplace, and, therefore, women who are only mothers are actually victims, and are in need of government programs (think affirmative action, “anti-discrimination” laws, etc..) to correct the injustices done to them.
If you live outside the confines of this dogma as I do, you may be thinking “but wait! Some women actually choose motherhood before career, and some husbands make tremendous sacrifices to allow that stay-at-home mom thing to happen.” But this leads us to another item of “unquestionably true” dogma: any woman who was truly being “herself” would never freely choose motherhood above all else.
On the contrary, a woman who thinks this way is being held hostage to ancient, patriarchal, male-dominated ideas – we’ll call it “ideological victimization” that probably happened within the context of an unenlightened religious setting – and she is need of a swift rebuke, if not more government intervention. Left-wing dogma always tells us that mere motherhood is not really working. That may be painful for some women, but such confrontation is really for a woman’s own good, and certainly adds to the “collective good” of the dogmatic community.
Are you beginning to understand how left-wing dogma works? Here’s another example of it: one should always assume the worst about the U.S. military, except when it is being commanded by a Democrat President and when it is participating in a multilateral mission (U.S. troops deployed side-by-side with troops from other countries).
I’m well aware that every radio talk show host insists he has the smartest listeners, but I suspect I have the smartest readers. I don’t say that simply because they’re wise enough to read what I write, which would certainly be a strong indicator, but because I read what they write.
For instance, I recently heard from Patrick Miano, of Phoenix, Arizona. In his opening, he mentioned that not too long ago a wealthy, charitable Arizona couple named Shapiro had been brutalized, robbed and murdered by a gang of five professional criminals. Recalling the way the liberal media had jumped all over the lunatic who had killed six people and injured a dozen others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, insisting on the basis of absolutely no evidence that he was a right-wing fanatic, Mr. Miano sent the following letter to Ed Montini, a liberal columnist for the Arizona Republic:
“I blame the liberal media and the Democrats for the murders of Mr. and Mrs. Shapiro and similar crimes that have occurred in this country. The president is also responsible for his tirades against ‘millionaires and billionaires flying in corporate jets.’ They incite poor people who have nothing to commit violence. They inflame the vast unstable element on the Left, fill them with class envy and resentment. Directly or indirectly, they encourage them to commit crimes against wealthy people like the Shapiros who have all the things they don’t. They rant about civility, but show none themselves. The murders of the Shapiros and other violence committed against our most productive and generous citizens are on their heads. They have created a counter-culture consumed with an entitlement mentality.
“Does the above paragraph offend you? Is it unfair? Is it based on fabrications and exaggerations? Does it wrongly attack people who have done nothing more than use colorful language to exercise their right of free speech? You’re absolutely right! It is and it does. I reject such thinking. But if you felt offended, now you know how Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, conservative news commentators and Republicans, felt when the Left blamed them and their rhetoric for the attempted murder of Rep. Giffords and the murders of six innocent people by an assassin who was accused of being a rightist fanatic, but was only a madman with no political leanings. It doesn’t feel good, does it? Ed, I know you were not involved in that slander and libel campaign, but at least some of your left-wing colleagues were. Maybe you’d like to show this to them.
“If conservatives in Arizona try to exploit the Shapiro tragedy using propaganda like the inflammatory falsehoods I wrote above as an example, remember where they got the idea.”
My only problem with the letter is that, unlike Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, conservative talk show hosts and Republicans, the Left does intentionally foment violence. You need look no further than the Occupy Wall Street movement that has devastated city streets around the country and the rioting by the public sector unions in Madison, Wisconsin, to see examples of it.
The other email came to me from Clarence MacKenzie, a reader up in Canada.
Semantics is the use language to manipulate the meanings of words in order to achieve a desired effect on an audience. For example when an angry liberal emails me and says, “someone should put a bullet in your head,” I ask if that said liberal thinks that it would be good if someone killed me and then said liberal emails me back crying about how he, “never said that!” Well, this is semantics. Yes, it is indeed true that said angry liberal never uttered the exact words, “I wish someone would kill you,” but what else does someone putting a “bullet in my head” imply? Still, to the liberal mindset, this liberal has never said anything as inflammatory as wishing me dead. This is precisely why it is so hard to argue with a liberal. No matter what they say, there is always some semantic argument that they will make that allows them to claim that they never really said what they said. It is like nailing Jell-o to the proverbial tree.
The examples of these semantic games played by liberals are numerous. Abortion is not “murder” because even though an innocent child is being killed in cold blood, they have come up with another name to call it. Formally declared wars are not “formally” declared wars because liberals do not like the verbiage that was used to initiate the use of military force (i.e. war). According to liberals, certain groups of people are not people (i.e. corporations) and said people are not entitled to their first amendment rights because liberals refuse to call them people. But on the other hand, labor unions, groups of people, had better be allowed their first amendment rights and then some or else holy Hell will break loose. Conservatives are “NAZIs” because, even though Nazism stands for National Socialism and was practiced by the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, the word “socialism” is not uttered when saying the words “NAZI”. Therefore NAZI magically comes to mean “conservative” rather than left-wing, socialist, progressive moonbat.
And then of course there is Obamacare. Liberals have been all over the place on this one and whether or not the funding mechanism for the program is a “tax” or not. Whether or not it is varies on how Constitutionally inept the person they are arguing with is. It is a “tax” when they want to justify it under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the authority to levy taxes. For reference, the powers of Congress to “tax” are limited to [1]:
• To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
• To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
• To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
• To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
• To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
• To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
• To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
• To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
• To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
• To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
• To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
• To provide and maintain a Navy;
• To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
• To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
• To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
• To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Ican’t tell you how many times I’ve asked myself how it is that so many of my fellow Americans can actually go out and vote for people as ignorant as Patty Murray, Barbara Boxer and Hank Johnson. Rep. Johnson, in case he’s slipped your mind, is the Democrat representing Georgia’s 4th congressional district, whose claim to fame is that during a House Armed Services Committee hearing, he asked Admiral Robert Willard if he shared the congressman’s concern that adding 8,000 servicemen and their families to the 175,000 civilians on the island could cause Guam to tip over and capsize.
The truth is, even if you ignore their politics, it would be hard to imagine any group of people in which this trio would not stand out by reason of their ignorance.
But just as often, I’ve found myself wondering why Fox keeps offering up the likes of Juan Williams, Leslie Marshall, Geraldo Rivera, Alan Colmes, Marc Lamont Hill and Bob Beckel. I sit at home listening to these donkeys braying the same predictable talking points to each and every question, and I find myself dismissing Fox’s claims to being fair and balanced. If that’s their intention, I say to myself, why is it they never invite some intelligent people on to present the liberal side of issues?
Then it struck me. There is no intelligent argument that can be made for liberalism. All any of them can do is parrot the same insipid sound bites dreamed up by the likes of Barack Obama, James Carville, David Axelrod, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and regurgitated ad nauseam by Jay Carney.
There is a very good reason why there’s nobody on the Left who is comparable to Charles Krauthammer, Mark Levin, Thomas Sowell, Brit Hume, Ann Coulter, Dennis Prager, Walter Williams, Mark Steyn, Steve Hayes, Bernie Goldberg, Harry Stein, Michael Medved, Mark Alexander, Bret Baier, Michelle Malkin and Lou Dobbs. The reason is that liberals never think for themselves. Aside from plotting how to game the system in order to steal elections, none of them ever has an original thought. Even questioning Barack Obama is regarded as an act of heresy.
What’s more, I can prove it. Every liberal in public life has called for abolishing the Second Amendment. Now why is that? I happen to know a number of liberals who own guns. What’s more, rich liberals who don’t own guns have security people on their payroll who carry them. Even anti-gun advocate Sen. Dianne Feinstein was once found to be packing a heater in her purse, and yet, with a single voice, liberals squeal for the abolition of all firearms. The only reason for all this hypocrisy is because some influential liberal along the way decided it was a divisive issue which could be used as a wedge between them and the rest of us.
How else could a Chicago punk at a San Francisco fundraiser be so certain that he would derive laughter, applause and huge campaign donations, from a bunch of limp-wristed fat cats by demeaning his betters as “those who cling to their guns and their religion”? For good measure, he was well-guarded at the event by a squad of Secret Service agents armed to the teeth.
Radical theorists never really go away. The debates over what Machiavelli really had in mind still continue, but they are almost irrelevant because it is not what he meant that matters, but what The Prince has meant to actual leaders and rulers as a guide for taking and holding power. The scribblings of every halfway notable leftist scribe drawing out a theoretical society built on some perfect method are still around, no matter how much they have been discredited in practice.
Alinsky is the last of them, not the truly last one, but the last of them with anything meaningful to say about applying leftist politics to the modern state, far less interested in how an ideal system should work and far more interested in how to realistically seize power in a modern state with open elections and all the other aspects of a free society.
The burial ground of most leftist thinkers is their ends, their goals lead to an unrealistic system, that is also true of Alinsky, but in an entirely different way. The left generally assumes that the ideal can be made real by applying an ideal philosophy, radicalizing the oppressed and confronting the oppressors. Alinsky is not the idealist’s theoretician, he is to theory what a pickpocket is to economics, not very interested in how money is made, but quite interested in showing you how to take it out of someone else’s pocket.
The Alinsky way is self-corrupting in the most direct way possible. Those who choose to follow it don’t go astray out of nobler motives, they have few of those to begin with. And that self-corruption destroys any possibility of the ends. If the traditional left usually has to come to power to realize the futility of change and give in to its impulse to rob and kill in the traditional autocratic way, those who follow the Alinsky way don’t take that long. Turning the means into the ends has been their business all along, and they don’t need to wait until disillusionment sets in to get to work.
Totalitarian leftist regimes end up purging their own idealists for not getting with the means as ends program. Lenin and Stalin butchered the very people who made the revolution happen, because they would interfere with their drive for absolute power. But Alinsky offered a preemptive purge for the American left, it didn’t take all the way, without the deluded idealist, the left would hardly exist, but he sharpened its predatory instincts.
The only possible outcome of the Alinsky path is a mafia state. For Alinsky disciples, the means are always more important than the ends, and the more they corrupt themselves and their own movement, the more the country they run starts resembling Russia or Nigeria as a corrupt hellhole where no one trusts anyone and underhanded deals, bribery and con games are the national pastime.
Corrupt methods end up corrupting everything they touch. The institutions, the ideas and the people. And the more corrupt those methods are, the more swiftly they corrupt. Alinsky dedicated his book to the devil, but failed to draw the appropriate lessons from the futility of satanic ambition for accomplishing anything except putting the devil in charge.
Milton’s devil chose to rule in hell, rather than serve in heaven.
While terms like “The Marketplace of Ideas” are still tossed about occasionally like confetti out of a tenth story window, they mean about as much as the soiled mass of tape that everyone has stepped on by the time the parade is over. The age of ideas, when issues might actually be debated, instead of answered immediately with talking points derived from an inflexible ideology whose only two poles are outrage and guilt, ended some time ago.
Today we live in the age of consensus. The cultural elites no longer debate opposing points of view, they dismiss them as racist or ignorant, ridiculing not only the argument, but the arguer and the very premise that there can even be an argument.
The “marketplace of ideas” is replaced with “I’m offended that we’re even having this discussion” or “Only ignorant people believe that.” These alternating poses of victimhood and superiority make it illegal or pointless to even discuss the subject and leave every issue settled by consensus. Scientific debates end before they have begun. Political debates exist only to allow candidates to affirm the consensus or castigate them for standing outside the consensus. Personal exchanges of views either reflect the consensus or become perilous and illegal.
The left veers between outrage and ridicule, between cries of “I’m oppressed” and “You’re an idiot”. Both are wholly subjective emotion-driven perceptions that cannot be rationally debated because they do not exist in the sphere of reason. They are the root of the “I Feel” creed which follows no intellectual or moral rules, striking poses of empathy and superiority for effect.
Everyone on the left is at once superior and oppressed, they are all part of the 99 percent being ground under the boot of the 1 percent, or members of minority groups oppressed by the white heteronormative patriarchy or creative people repressed by faceless corporations, and if they aren’t any of those, then by virtue of their empathy they slip under the wire until like Bill Clinton, they are acknowledged as the first black president of the United States.
The teenager lives the illusion of being deep in a world of shallow people, identifying with outside groups because they reflect his fantasies of alienation. Rather than empathy, this is actually a failure of empathy that time usually remedies. Time has never remedied that failure of empathy for the left, which buries itself in fantasies of victimhood, wealthy white men and women trek to the ghetto or to Africa to nourish themselves on true suffering like emotional vampires who need someone else’s pain to affirm their own pain.
Outrage is eternal. There is something to always be outraged about and they are always on the hunt for it. If you aren’t outraged, then you aren’t paying attention. And if you are outraged, then you can silence any opposition by appealing to the plight of the suffering people somewhere. When you pay enough attention, then you can collect so many things to be outraged by, that you can shut down any discussion with an outrage card from your playing deck.
The emissions of outrage silence ideas with self-righteous outbursts of emotion. Their morality is singular, not universal.
Recent events inspired Burt to write this bonus article for you. After you’ve read this one, be sure to read the scheduled article, “A POTPOURRI FOR OUR TIMES.” -ed.
by BurtPrelutsky
By this time, anyone who’s interested knows that Sandra Fluke wasn’t just another young law student at Georgetown, but in fact was a 30 year old left-wing political activist who enrolled at the Catholic university in order to crusade on behalf of publicly funded contraception and abortion.
Because the 800-pound gorilla of conservative radio, Rush Limbaugh, made the mistake of calling her a few names, he turned this otherwise insignificant ditz into the media’s idea of a martyr. Unlike Joan of Arc, however, the only voice Ms. Fluke heard in her head was her own, which, being a liberal, she naturally assumed was God’s.
Her sleazy motives for enrolling at a Catholic school aside, she made a terrible spokeswoman for Obama’s war on matters of conscience and religious freedom. Even if you are one of those airheads who agree with Obama that his frontal attack on the 1st Amendment is really all about women’s health, you should be annoyed with Fluke. For one thing, the tuition at Georgetown runs $45,000-a-year, meaning that three years of Law School is running her, or, more likely, her folks, $135,000, not counting room and board. Whatever your politics may be, it’s pretty hard to imagine that whoever is writing the checks to Georgetown can’t also afford to pay for her birth-control pills.
For another thing, she even lied about the cost. She whined that if the federal government, otherwise known as the taxpayers, didn’t supply her with free pills, the three year cost would be $3,000. Frankly, I had no idea if that was true, but to me, the difference between $135,000 and $138,000 seemed rather inconsequential, and certainly nothing that called for a congressional hearing. However, after doing a little research, I found that a six-month supply of Yasmin, a popular generic birth-control pill, runs $89.98, plus shipping. Which means that, instead of $1,000 a year, the cost would be $179.96, and while we all know that shipping isn’t always as cheap as we’d like, it’s highly unlikely that it would run Ms. Fluke anything close to $820.04-a-year.
In other words, while Ms. Fluke is probably not a slut or a prostitute, as Limbaugh suggested, she is certainly a great big fibber. And if I were her parents, I’d certainly want to know why she is leading such an active sex life when she should be hitting those expensive law books.
Speaking of Mr. Limbaugh, in the wake of the media firestorm that greeted his inflammatory words, several of his radio advertisers jumped ship before trying to jump back aboard. However, the biggest problem with reacting too quickly in these situations is that it calls attention to sponsors in ways they’d much rather avoid. For instance, one of the advertisers that leapt before it looked is Carbonite.
Every once in a while I like to post something from Joy Behar just to help us feel like geniuses in comparison:
The shrill, extremist comments coming from the co-hosts on The View continued, Thursday. Liberal comedienne Joy Behar trashed Virginia for passing abortion restrictions, saying the new law makes the state like “the Taliban.”
Behar highlighted legislation requiring women, in some cases, to have an ultrasound before getting an abortion, decrying the move as “invasive.” She then hyperbolically shrieked, “It’s like, what are we? What is this, the Taliban now? What are we, in Afghanistan? Where are we exactly in this country?”
The Taliban make women get ultrasounds before having abortions?
But remember, it’s just the sonogram that’s Taliban-esque — the actual murder of the baby is a liberty that is to be celebrated and protected.
Catch Kevin
If you like facts over fiction, reality over rhetoric, and truth over tradition, tune into my radio show, “Catch Kevin: Unscripted & Uncensored!”
Chuck Baldwin Live
Dr. Baldwin’s messages from Kalispell, MT, will be livestreamed on this page every Sunday afternoon at approximately 2:30 p.m. MST.
Clash Radio
Listen to Doug Giles Live Monday – Friday at 11am – 12pm[est]
Our Sponsors
Get in on the modern Gold Rush. Call now to buy gold bars from The U.S. Gold Bureau.
![bookmark](http://island-adv.com/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/images/blank.gif" height=){kind=small}
Catch Kevin
Chuck Baldwin Live![Clash Radio Listen to Doug Giles Live Monday – Friday at 11am – 12pm[est]](http://island-adv.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/clash_logoreverse.png "Listen to Doug Giles Live Monday – Friday at 11am – 12pm[est]")
Clash Radio
