Tuesday, March 23, 2021

Why Tulsi Gabbard Is Right for an America First GOP

I don't agree with all the comments below but I do think Tulsi has a lot of potential as a conservative

The political realignment caused by President Donald Trump’s rise as the undeniable leader of the Republican Party is just beginning to be realized, and it may result in the emergence of a surprising superstar: former U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii.

Gabbard first gained her following as a supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders who refused to participate in a corrupt DNC process that disenfranchised the far-left presidential candidate. This made her a reviled figure among establishment Democrats, who hated her even more when she refused to buy into Russian xenophobia and opposed bombing campaigns in Syria. Her refreshing honesty has resulted in an unexpected cult following developing among pro-Trump conservatives.

While Gabbard’s economic policies vary considerably from the Republican orthodoxy, she brings a much-needed breath of fresh air on the issues of civil liberties and foreign wars. These are issues that appeal to young people who are often the ones thrown into the meat grinder of the war machine or are otherwise punished by the state for nonviolently enjoying their lives. Gabbard is an asset who should not be stubbornly rejected in Trump’s GOP. Making the Republican Party into a true MAGA coalition will require the building of bridges and the rejection of failed approaches tried in the past.

Gabbard is a politician that the Republican Party needs to rebuild its shattered credibility among the masses. She has built a brand as a maverick who will say what she believes is right on the issues, no matter the political consequences. Gabbard would also alienate all of the worst actors still festering within the Republican Party. The annoying free marketeers, who gave the cold shoulder to Trump for his economic nationalism, would naturally be up in arms, because of Gabbard’s lack of reverence for the sacred deity of GDP. The remnants of the neocon war party, including former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, would be the most triggered, and their anguish alone would be worth letting the Gabbardites into the fold.

Her entrance into the party would introduce some common sense into the fold. For instance, compare and contrast a Gabbard Republican to the Republicans of the past. A George W. Bush Republican would support lower taxes for the wealthy, paying lip service to some scribblings made by economist Milton Friedman in the 1960s, while increasing corporate subsidies and defense spending to grease his corporate buddies. A Tulsi Gabbard Republican, theoretically, would support more taxation and social spending but would end the corporate dominance of the markets and hamstring the military-industrial complex. This makes far more sense to anyone outside of the stifling Conservative Inc. bubble.

Gabbard’s full acceptance in the MAGA coalition would force the America Last forces within the GOP to expose themselves, as her coherent articulation of a noninterventionist foreign policy would put the neocons on the defense. While the neocons can easily plant a John Bolton or an H.R. McMaster into the Trump nexus (with horrible negative consequences to his America First agenda), this could never happen with Gabbard as she is unflappable on her core issues. She is emerging as a figure not seen since former Texas Congressman Ron Paul gained a quixotic following, being able to traverse chasms and divides that others cannot. The tremendous void of courage, decency and morality in the GOP has created the ability for unorthodox coalitions and strange new leaders. It is time to exploit these exciting circumstances to the fullest by fostering a strain of Tulsi Gabbard Republicanism.

Of course, for this to work, Gabbard needs to lean in and tailor her rhetoric to appeal to Republicans. There is already evidence that she is doing this, as evidenced by her appearances on Fox News since leaving congressional office. She appeared on the network to defend individuals who appeared at the controversial protest in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6, calling out irresponsible Democratic propaganda meant to bring the war on terror into the homeland. She has also slammed “cancel culture” for creating the type of repression pushed by groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda. Gabbard is positioning herself to lead moderates and independents turned off by the excesses of the modern Left.

Before she left Congress, Gabbard’s defiant final act put focus on the absurd dogma of the social justice warriors. She introduced legislation that would keep biological men out of women’s sports, an issue that is radioactively unpopular with average voters. She also introduced a bill that would protect babies who survived the gruesome abortion procedure. Horror stories have emerged in recent years of babies surviving abortions and then being mangled alive for their organs to be trafficked in the medical industry. Gabbard’s awareness of these issues already beats many Republicans who only pay occasional lip service to them on the campaign trail. At the very least, it shows Gabbard has compassion that transcends the petty partisanship plaguing our civic life.

Recent news items under the Biden regime demonstrate the nature of the current political crackup and how it benefits Gabbard. Pentagon attacks on Fox News host Tucker Carlson, for having the incredulousness of suggesting that pregnant women should not be placed on the frontlines in combat zones, have been bizarre and surreal. Following that up with the National Guard mobbing Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) at her own office, and we see an emerging trend of military personnel being used as cheap props to promote woke-ism for the Democrats. With no end in sight to the war on Afghanistan and the U.S. not being able to claim a decisive war victory in nearly 80 years, this is evidence that America is a non-serious country in serious decline, or perhaps free-fall collapse at this point.

With her sterling record of military service, Gabbard could gain traction as a Republican leader who will actually stand with the troops while maintaining the credibility to command their respect. While Trump certainly had the respect of the rank-and-file military, his avoidance of the Vietnam military draft and his trashing of individuals such as deceased former Sen. John McCain allowed Trump to be attacked on the issue of defense. Gabbard is unassailable in this regard, having been proven correct repeatedly despite the objections of so-called intelligence and national security experts. Gabbard has even shown the likes of Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris what a formidable foe she can be during public spats with Democrat leaders.

Republicans who pine for the great debate between capitalism and socialism, under the notion that Gen Z and millennials are just one PragerU video away from seeing the light, are effectively dooming the conservative cause despite their best efforts. The capitalism vs. socialism debate has already concluded and socialism has won, not because of ignorance or propaganda but because of the abject failure of conservatism. Republicans blew whatever credibility they may have had with young people by supporting bank bailouts, corporate subsidies, trade deals facilitating the outsourcing of jobs, forever wars, and countless other terrible policies. The youth is in turn tuning out conservatism and embracing socialism out of misguided self-interest.

Now, those of us in the Republican Party who are forward-thinking have to pick up the pieces and clean up the damage that has already been done. It is accomplished by taking the Republican Party in a populist, nationalist, America First direction. This is achieved not just by giving dedicated principled activists control over the party, permanently displacing the lobbyist-approved milquetoast class of Romney/Ryan losers, but also by forming non-traditional coalitions to build a populist Left-Right alliance that will devastate the status quo, making it wholly untenable. Gabbard could be the linchpin in creating a formidable lasting coalition if Republicans muster the courage to leave the reservation, as they did in voting for Trump as President in 2016, and manifest national greatness.


The Rise of the Politically Correct Language Censors

Today, we are faced with a new campaign of censorship, accompanied with the demand not just to ban the use of certain words or phrases but to insist that they be replaced with other words and phrases that must be accepted and used, if the potential “word-criminal” is not to be found guilty of racism, sexism or any other of a multitude of created groups and categories, and for which the “insensitive” individual may face serious life and career-affecting consequences.

On the surface, the appeal for a greater awareness and sensitivity to what and how we say things that, unintentionally, may be taken the wrong way by someone who personally has had “harmful” and “hurtful” experiences, or who comes from a family that in the past suffered from certain words and deeds in various ways, seems not unreasonable. Jews, in the past, were often called “kikes” or “Yids,” nor “Christ-killers.” It has generally become unacceptable to use such terms in reference to a person practicing the Jewish faith or having Jewish ancestors. And, similarly, certain words used in insulting or demeaning ways in reference to blacks in America have become unacceptable in virtually any and all social settings, both public and private. (See my article, “The Case for Liberty Through Thick and Thin”.)

However, languages, with their meanings, connotations, and acceptable uses of words, phrases, and terms, are always changing in every society. Sometimes a socially demeaning word can, over time, continue to be used without the negative implication. For instance, the word “slave:” a number of linguistic sources say that it originated from the word “Slav,” referring to certain groups of people living in Eastern Europe who were captured in the Middle Ages by other invading and conquering groups and forced into compulsory work; that is, made into “slaves.” Whether or not this long-held etymology is correct or not, to call someone, past or present, a “Slav” no longer implies an “inferior” or subservient status of those who live in that part of Europe.

It is also the case that a word that has an insulting connotation in one language may not have such a necessary negative meaning in another. For instance, it has become totally unacceptable for a white person to call a black American by what has become sanitized as the “N” word. Yet, the Russian version of this word, for instance, has not and for the most part still does not carry the offending sense that it does in English. It is merely the Russian word for a black person. If a Russian, who knows nothing about the historicity of that word in the American context, were to use it in the United States that person would have no idea that in using it any offense had been given.

Word Bans and Speech Commands in Manchester

Times change, and as attitudes, understandings, and “sensitivities” change through time, so do the uses and non-uses of words. But what happens when the determination of the use and meaning of words, phrases and forms of human interaction become hijacked by those who are determined to arrogate to themselves the lexicon of language? Who insist that they, above all others in society, know what should be said and should not be said, and what words shall be imposed on everyone else as near mandatory substitutes for the condemned and “forbidden” words?

This is the world in which we are presently existing, the “woke” world of political correctness, identity politics, and cancel culture. To demonstrate that this is not purely an American ideological phenomenon, just this past week, a British publication, The Spectator (March 11, 2021) reported that, “Manchester University Scraps the Word ‘Mother.” We are told that this respected British university has issued a “guide to inclusive language” that all those affiliated with that institution of higher learning are expected to follow and practice.

Some examples. It is no longer permissible to refer to the “elderly,” or a “pensioner” or those who are members of the “mature workforce.” These all imply inappropriate “ageisms.” No, instead, you will refer to those “over-65s, 75s, and so on,” we are told. The word, “diabetic,” is prohibited as it suggests a handicap. Now the focus must be on a person’s “abilities, rather than limitations.” A person, for instance, is not “suffering from cancer,” they are “living with cancer.”

Also, it is now necessary to use “gender-neutral” terms when referring to people. Thus, calling someone a “man” or a “woman” or a “father” or a “mother” is out. The preferred terms are to be “individuals” or “guardians.” The author of The Spectator article wonders if this means that Mother’s Day now is to be called “Guardian’s Day?” But, wait, does not “guardian” suggest a hierarchy of oppressor and oppressed? The Manchester “wokers” may have subliminally fallen into the very thing they say they want to eradicate. Cancel culture may have to come after some of the culture cancellers. (In an earlier time, this was said to be the revolution eating some of its own children.)

But nonetheless, following their own train of thought, at Manchester University you may no longer say that something is “man-made,” with, instead, “artificial” or “synthetic” as the required replacements. Mankind becomes humankind, and “manpower” is to be deleted and “workforce” is to be put in its place.

Training Enterprise Managers in the Ways of Identity Politics

At an American institution of higher learning with which I am acquainted, I have been told that a proposal has been made for the introduction of a diversity and inclusion management certificate. It seems that learning relevant management skills in selecting and overseeing a workforce (notice, I’m being politically correct, already!) for product and manufacturing and marketing efficiency, productivity, and profitability on the basis of individual employee’s education, skills, experience and other background qualifications to fill positions needed within the enterprise is no longer enough.

Nor is it simply a reasonable management tool to learn to treat those hired with courtesy and respect, both as a general rule of “good managerial conduct,” and to have employees who have a positive attitude about the place in which they are working and earning a living. And nor is it sufficient (regardless of regulatory requirements) to see the ethical rightness and practical advantages of evaluating and judging and rewarding employees in terms of their individual characteristics and merits and value-added to the private enterprise.

No, this is no longer enough. Instead, the student entering into a sequence of courses leading to such a diversity and inclusion management certificate will be informed that their tasks will be for, “creating inclusive cultures, enhancing organizational effectiveness and maximizing the sense of belonging among diverse stakeholders.” When completed, the certificate receiver will have demonstrated “the capability in planning, executing, and assessing a small-scale inclusion, diversity, and belonging-related intervention in an organization at either the intrapersonal, interpersonal, group, or organizational level.”

What will the student have learned along the way? He or she (or “it”) will have “an historical understanding and fluent usage of contemporary terms and language used in the field of diversity, inclusion, and belonging.” They will also know how to “conceive of, plan, conduct, and evaluate a diversity or inclusion initiative within an organization.” And they will know how to “facilitate effective dialogue within a diverse group of individuals holding widely divergent views.”

This will include the ability to analyze “various issues related to diversity, equity, and inclusion;” critically “examine your background and self-assessment . . . on how you see the world,” and “reflect on the ways other people’s backgrounds . . . [affect] their perspectives on the world and their behavior in teams.”

The student taking these courses will learn how to “navigate the ambiguity and complexity that comes with multiple perspectives,” as well as “identifying the ways that power differentials operate, are experienced and reinforced” at different levels of workplace interactions. This will include knowing how to provide “services” to different groups, and especially “non-dominant populations.”

Identity Politics as the Child of Marxist Mind Manipulation

What stands out most noticeably is the repetition of words – “diversity,” “inclusiveness,” “belonging,” and “equity.” But what do these terms mean, and what do they imply about human relationships, starting with how the individual person views him- or herself? For the unreflective student, the prospectus for such a certificate, therefore, can easily seem innocuous, as simply being “fair” and respectful in a world in which people are different.

But it all depends upon what the words mean by both definition and context. In the world of identity politics and cancel culture, the lexicon of language is mostly the transference of Marxian concepts and categories to the “post-modern” race and gender arena. For Marxists and their practitioners in places such as the former Soviet Union, culture and language were viewed as tools used for capitalist class oppression of the working class through control and manipulation of what was written, said, and educationally learned and believed. The purpose of language and learning under capitalism was for the constructing of a societal “false consciousness” that succeeds in getting the majority of the population to accept their exploited status and to believe that there is no escape from it in this life.

Or as political scientist Tony Smith summarized it in, Thinking Like a Communist (1987):

“[Social] ‘Classes’ therefore are groups distinguished by the specialized positions they occupy in a common economic system and by their degree of control (or ownership) of the forces of production . . . Their ‘conflict’ comes from the fact that these positions are dependent upon one another but are not equal in power . . . The most advantaged class will seek to ensure its position through political means, through control, that is of the ‘state,’ whose primary function, in Marxist terms, is to serve the interests of the ruling class through a stratagem that combines force, mythmaking, and co-option.” (pp. 43-44)

Education and ideology were viewed as inseparable from each other in this Marxian world view, because the inherent nature of human relationships is dictated by who owns the means of production to oppress others for their benefit, and to assure active or passive acceptance of one’s class-determining status and place in society. The idea that education and knowledge can be unbiased, “factual,” and objectively logical is alien to this worldview. For the Marxist, education was “reeducation” to raise the ideological consciousness of those living under or threatened by capitalism; for them to know and see the “real” power relationships in society.

Or as one Soviet leader expressed it in the 1970s: “The Soviet school does not simply prepare educated people. It is responsible for the turning out of politically literate, ideologically convinced fighters for the communist cause. The school never stood, and it cannot stand, aside from politics, in the struggle of classes.” (Quoted in, N. N. Shneidman, Literature and Ideology in Soviet Education (1973, p. 2.)


'Sneering' BBC presenters mock minister over Union flag

The Culture Secretary has criticised the BBC's "sneering" attitude after its breakfast television presenters appeared to mock Robert Jenrick for displaying the Union flag in his office.

Charlie Stayt and Naga Munchetty laughed as they pointed out that large flags have begun appearing regularly in the background of ministerial interviews.

Ms Munchetty later received a "reminder" from bosses about inappropriate social media use after she liked a tweet which praised their comments and said: "The flag shaggers will be up in arms."

The BBC said the on-air exchange was "light-hearted" and not meant to offend. But speaking to The Telegraph on Thursday night, Oliver Dowden said: "I'm concerned that what started as light-hearted banter became sneering which is not the BBC at its best.

"As I've said before, it is so important that the BBC reflects and respects the values of the whole of the UK."

Tim Davie, the BBC director-general, was said to be furious that the exchange happened on the day he announced plans to shift operations away from London in a bid to end accusations of liberal metropolitan bias.

Mr Stayt made his remarks at the end of an interview, pointing out that Mr Jenrick had a large Union flag on display behind him. "I think your flag is not up to standard size, Government interview measurements. I think it's just a little bit small, but that's your department really,” he said.

Ms Munchetty laughed and added: "There's always a flag. They had the picture of the Queen, though."

The presenters' comments triggered a swift backlash on social media, with the veteran former BBC journalist Andrew Neil writing: "Sometimes the BBC forgets what the first B stands for."

Robbie Gibb, a former head of the BBC's political programming and an ex-director of communications at Number 10, said: "On the day the BBC announces the welcome news it is moving more programmes out of London, this BBC Breakfast clip reveals a sneering and cynical attitude towards our monarchy and flag that shows it's not just about where people are based, the BBC has a wider cultural problem."

One Tory MP said: "The BBC hates Britain. That's exactly what is wrong with it."

Ms Munchetty "liked" a tweet that said: "What has Charlie done? The flag shaggers will be up in arms. Tell him we love him." She was later reminded of her responsibilities in relation to social media use.

On Thursday night, Mr Jenrick said the flag was a "symbol of liberty and freedom".

After a discussion with BBC management, Ms Munchetty issued a public apology. She said: "I 'liked' tweets today that were offensive in nature about the use of the British flag as a backdrop in a government interview this morning. I have since removed these 'likes'. This does not represent the views of me or the BBC. I apologise for any offence taken."

The breakfast programme is broadcast from Salford and the incident was badly timed for the BBC as it unveiled a grand plan to become more representative of the nation by moving operations away from London.


As a 'Person of Color,' I Received a COVID-19 Vaccine Easily and Quickly

And I don't think it's fair.

Given a recent experience, I think I understand better why almost thirty percent of blacks oppose Affirmative Action. Unseen hands gifted me with quick and easy access to a COVID-19 vaccine. Why? I believe I was incorrectly classified as a "person of color." This access bothered me, not least because a friend, "Rocky," needs the vaccine more than I do. I begged Rocky to take my slot, but he declined. He wanted me to get it.

By February 1, 2021, only 7.7 percent of the US population had been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. Only 22.5% of especially vulnerable and needy people whom the CDC prioritized to receive the vaccine had been vaccinated. That means, as of February 1, 2021, 77.5% of those most likely to die from COVID-19 were yet to be fully vaccinated. This includes elderly people, the obese, those with cancer, Down syndrome, weak immune systems, diabetes, smokers, and pregnant women.

I assumed I'd be waiting my turn, while continuing to wear my mask, to wash my hands, and to isolate socially, as I had been doing since the pandemic began.

But it was a risk I didn't have to take. It was late January, 2021. While vulnerable populations were perched over their computers for days at a time, clicking "refresh" hundreds of times, while parents of Down Syndrome children were driving hundreds of miles in search of vaccines, and while grandparents were begging for help from tech-savvy grandchildren, a written invitation to receive a vaccine slid silently under my door. The highly effective Pfizer vaccine was available to me. No waiting, no line, no pressure. I just walked a few minutes from my front door, and rolled up my sleeve. For the second of this two-dose vaccine, I urged Rocky to take my place. He, manfully, refused. He wanted me to get it. I did. I felt like garbage. I was well aware that I was taking the place of someone who needed the vaccine more than I. I now have – yes, it's a thing – vaccine guilt.

I live in a majority-minority city in a majority-minority apartment complex. I estimate that about 90% of my neighbors are black or Hispanic. Governor Phil Murphy, along with all other public officials, has been under extraordinary pressure to prioritize vaccinating black and Hispanic people, and his administration is doing just that. In fact, even before any vaccines were authorized, news outlets reported that "Health experts want to prioritize people of color for a COVID-19 vaccine."

Many insisted that blacks did not want to get vaccines because the Tuskegee Experiment made blacks distrust mainstream medicine. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study took place between 1932 and 1972. It involved 399 black men with latent syphilis who were merely observed, and not treated, for the disease. Doctors could have treated the patients with penicillin, but they did not, because they wanted data on the course of untreated syphilis in black men. This study is monstrous. Those who carried it out were criminals. It stopped in 1972 after word of the study became public. Revelation of the study lead to the creation of strict standards for scientific experimentation on human beings. In 1997, President Bill Clinton issued a formal apology.

Those who attribute the discrepancy between black and non-black vaccination rates to trauma from the Tuskegee study insist that the entire US medical establishment is a white supremacist, criminal enterprise, comparable to the monsters who carried out that study, that black people risk their lives seeking medical care, and that their vaccine wariness is well-founded

The Woke, like Marxists before them, sniff around other people's pain the way rats sniff around garbage. The Woke are not looking for problems to solve; they are looking for pain to commodify. They want to overturn bad, corrupt, Western Civilization and replace it with their brave, new world. The Woke sneer at the pain of poor whites as an unworthy commodity for revolution building. The Woke focus on exacerbating division between whites and blacks.

Me? I've learned, through the school of hard knocks, that I hurt only myself when I avoid doctors. I've learned to educate myself, recruit allies, and develop a courteous and yet assertive stance. I'm still afraid when I go to the doctor; though I am otherwise a teetotaler when it comes to mind-altering drugs, I have a Klonopin prescription, an anti-anxiety drug, that I take when I go to the doctor.

Now, imagine if I were black. Teachers, politicians, ministers, NPR, the New York Times, MSNBC, would drum into me, not that my and my family's bad medical experiences were unfortunate but not part of any conspiracy. No. Powerful voices would not be telling me that I am responsible for my own care, that I need to inform myself, recruit an ally, and learn to be polite but assertive. No. I would be told, again and again, with the force of chanted, unquestionable dogma, that I was a victim of a thorough-going white supremacist society eager to use medicine to destroy me. Every white person I meet is my enemy and wields the tools of medicine only sadistically. If I heard that message from teachers, from NPR, from the New York Times, over and over, would I avail myself of a vaccine? Hell no.

Why do the Woke tell black people this story? Because it disempowers black people. In the case of vaccine avoidance, this false narrative might just kill black people. Nor is this the only Woke narrative that results in black death. Telling black people that police are all white supremacists out to get them is another death-dealer. Telling black people that standards in schools are "racist" destroys the academic lives of black students. Why do the Woke want to disempower and even kill black people, through false narratives like this and others? Because they hope that weakened people will submit more readily to the Woke narrative of salvation through Woke politics. False narratives of universal white evil and ultimate black powerlessness are the Woke's recruitment pamphlets.

And here's a kicker. Research shows that the Tuskegee study, a trope so beloved of the Woke that they mention it every chance they get, is not cited by African Americans as their reason not to get the COVID-19 vaccine. "No, the Tuskegee Study Is Not the Top Reason Some Black Americans Question the COVID-19 Vaccine," reports KQED. In fact, researchers have known for years that African Americans are not rejecting medical attention because of Tuskegee. "The conclusions were definitive … There was no association between knowledge of Tuskegee and willingness to participate" in medical procedures.

Why, then, do the Woke cite Tuskegee? Social work professor Karen Lincoln says, "If you say Tuskegee, then you don't have to acknowledge … poverty and unemployment." Well, isn't that convenient. Ignore the poverty that pushes both poor whites and poor blacks away from medical care. Why did I consent to being experimented on by a callous researcher? I was stricken with a vestibular disorder when I was a grad student, and I had no health insurance and no money. Rather than talking about poverty and health care, the Woke obsess on race. Race is more divisive, and division advances the divisive Woke narrative. Also, obsession on race exempts rich white liberals from attention to their own wealth. Every revolution needs someone to hate, and the Woke hate poor whites. Focus on skin color instead of poverty and unemployment allows the Woke their hatred-of-choice.

I am tormented by the fear that Rocky will soon die. My morbid obsession is a sign of how much he means to me. Most of my siblings have died, often young, of cancer. (Yes, even white people are subjected to the kind of environmental pollution that results in demographically atypical early cancer deaths.) After two other siblings died decades ago, both my only sister and yet another brother died of cancer in the past six years. Rocky is one of the few people I have left who remembers me from my childhood. He's a good man and he deserves a long life. I beg God to let me die before Rocky. I pray this prayer not because I'm like Father Byles on the Titanic. I pray this prayer because I'm alone and losing Rocky would gut me and I couldn't survive his loss.

Rocky was born in a high-crime, majority-minority city. His immigrant parents sent Rocky to the local bakery to beg for bread. Any meat his family saw were the cuts that butchers can't sell. Rocky was malnourished. He caught pneumonia. He was hospitalized for three months. His lungs never recovered.

Rocky experiences coughing fits. Sometimes he just puts his head back and struggles for breath. His struggle to breathe terrifies and saddens me.

Rocky, with his compromised lungs, can't get a COVID-19 vaccine. Rocky is a white male, an alleged monarch squatting atop a throne of unearned privilege. You won't hear about anyone like Rocky from the Woke peddling their divisive pamphlets.


My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)


No comments: