Tag Archive | "United States"

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

On the Precipice

Posted on 10 April 2011 by Editor

Originally posted 2009-09-27 21:11:58. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Ronald Reagan's signature

September 27, 2009

I was fortunate recently to receive a gift from a close friend of a marvelous work of biographical documentary by Lou Cannon, an authority on the life and work of Ronald Reagan. The illustrated portfolio of Reagan’s contributions to America is truly an inspiring piece of literature, as well as a powerful historical reference of his accomplishments. The accompanying audio CD containing excerpts of his speeches, including the famous “Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Berlin speech of June 12, 1987, is a stimulating flashback to the times when American strength and influence was able to change the world in dramatic ways.

Moving page by page through this exceptional work one finds it difficult to not return in one’s mind to the culminating years of the 20th century and remind oneself of the edge of the precipice on which the world stood in those days. The escalating arms race between the USSR and the United States was truly the one event in world history which, had it not been ultimately conquered, might have lead to our annihilation; the end of our civilization and as a human race.

Our options were limited but remarkably clear. Succumbing to the influence of Soviet domination would have changed, and indeed destroyed our way of life as a free society. This was not an acceptable option. Movements to appease the Soviet aggressor were growing, emanating both from within the US and many countries with liberal-leaning democracies. Cries of “better dead than read,” the rallying cry of anti-communist forces within the US were being elsewhere reversed, and “better red than dead” was increasingly heard around the world. It seemed as if the US was the last and only obstacle to the Soviet’s imposition of their social and economic order on the world. Yet still many around the world naively believed that, if only left alone and not challenged, the Soviet Union would necessarily do the same and retreat to its ancient borders and withhold further communist encroachment into their countries.

Reagan, however, saw this as it truly was – a war of ideas where in the end there had to be a victor and there had to be a defeated. He stated it very clearly – “Peace is so easy to achieve. I can give it to you in one second. All you have to do is surrender.”

The war had to be won. The consequences of anything other than victory were unthinkable. Astute in recognizing the perfectly aligned circumstances of the support of Pope John Paul II, the Solidarity uprising in Poland, and an opening presented by a slightly more realistic than his predecessors General Secretary Gorbachev, Reagan fearlessly confronted the Soviet regime and at the perfect moment dealt the final blow. His words of defiance against the Soviet empire, like a match, lit the fire of counter revolution throughout Eastern Europe, and the Soviet regime soon collapsed of its own weight and inability to defend its flawed ideals.

With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, most of the countries previously under its communist vice have since become prosperous market societies, and the American principles of freedom and liberty spread widely across these newly emerging free market democracies. Reagan left behind a legacy of a world much safer and economically viable. Bells of liberty and freedom had been made to ring louder and clearer than ever before. With his legacy we were also reminded of the power of liberty over tyranny and conviction over appeasement.

And here we are, no more than 20 years later faced with circumstances ominously similar to those during Reagan’s presidency. Though there may no longer be a Soviet Union, yet today’s Russia is increasingly becoming emboldened to act with the same dictatorial patterns as the Bolsheviks of half a century years ago. Socialism (or in reality a contorted and deformed version thereof) has been adopted by a number of dictatorial regimes like Venezuela’s Chavez and is spreading to other countries not far from our doorstep (Honduras). Islamic terrorism continues to be an unresolved threat and in fact may be strengthening its roots across the world.

But this time the United States lacks the leadership and conviction it did during the Reagan presidency. Indeed, our ideological infrastructure has been so severely infected with socialist principles and ideology that we cannot even be certain whether we are opposed to the progressive encroachment of hard core collectivism and government control into our way of life. Voices of mainstream political figures uttering words such as “we must accept the increased role of government in our lives” and “it takes a village to raise a child” all point to our increasing acceptance of government as a paternal figure in our lives. This is in complete conflict with our founding principles. It repaints our country with an ideology that is foreign to the core of our beliefs and in many ways invalidates the experiment that had created our country in the first place.

It is important to understand the chain of events that the world socialist envisions. It begins at an individual and national level, where the abandonment of personal liberties leads to the socialization of the society within the respective nation. Once enough individual societies have succumbed to the socialist ideology, this in turn becomes the seed toward globalized socialism, where individual nations forgo their national individuality and interests for the benefit of the global order.

Advertisement

Advertisement

While troubling within the context of our nation, the ramifications on the future of our world are extremely profound.  If America is absorbed into the “community” defined by the world-wide socialist agenda, its leadership role will cease, leaving the world to be led by a dysfunctional conglomerate of nations. As evidenced by the total ineffectiveness of the United Nations, the resulting inaction at a global level can be nothing less than terrifying.

Imagine a world without leadership, with the United States playing an equal partner role with all other countries of the world. A true “to each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities.” Equal sharing of all resources. No conflict. No wars. No boundaries.

Utopia, you say? I say absolutely. Then I add. No food. No progress. No innovation. No invention. No individual – only the collective.

To create a world society which completely uproots and ignores the basics of the human behavioral DNA is excellent material for science fiction, but in the real world it is folly. By natural law man strives to become more than what he is. He does so because he anticipates this will improves his life. When he does, by so doing, he contributes to the progress of society.

Man is flawed (thank our Creator for that) and desires more than what he needs. And greed is as much a part of his character as is his need to breathe. Man is also benevolent, and once his needs are generally met, he gladly shares of his goods, first with family, then with others of his choosing.

You can no more remove these traits from man than you can make him refuse food or water. To remove them is to devoid him of the desire to create and improve.

The United States is at the crossroads of determining the shape of its future. While the socialist agenda has been active here for the better part of the 20th century (Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal), at no time has the pace of radical change been so rapid as during the first 9 months of Barack Obama’s presidency. As if realizing that inconvenient truths must sooner or later catch up with his agenda, the breakneck speed of socialist reforms undertaken by him are intended to reach as far as possible before the electorate realizes the consequences of his  actions.

With each such reform the relevance of the individual fades further and the objective of the statist is closer to being realized.

While no credible single leader has emerged in opposition to this agenda, the electorate is clearly catching on and beginning to establish beachheads in pushing back on many of the reforms. But the voice of a leader in the tradition of Ronald Reagan is yet to be heard.  When he/she emerges, the battle will extend to winning back the statist’s gains and aiming our attention on the world stage, where America’s leadership desperately needs to be reestablished.

The United States has earned the right to be the dominant nation. It has done so by succeeding where others have failed, by creating a society and system of government which recognizes and aligns with man’s desire for freedom and liberty. By so doing it has created great prosperity and a standard of living for its citizens unmatched throughout the world. It has earned the right to lead because of its benevolence toward less prosperous nations, having provided more positive influence and material support for them than any other country and, in fact, more than all other nations under the United Nations banner.

Now our future is far from clear, our destiny far from being secure. The strength and effect of the mounting opposition to Barack Obama’s agenda will determine how far our nation swings in the direction of collectivism and how reversible (if at all) these effects will be. What is at stake is nothing less than the heart of our national identity, the principles of our 200+ year old democracy and the success of the experiment that is the United States of America.

Will history show the era of Ronald Reagan to be just a temporary relapse in the statist’s march toward the eventual imposition of socialist order upon the world? Or will it serve as a lasting testament of the power of conviction and the strength of our ideals that we once again now need to exhibit in defense of our liberty, freedom and national identity?

The answer may very well determine the course of our next 200 years as either Americans or as citizens of the world.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Article may be published with attribution and must include trackback information

Article trackback: http://nakedliberty.com/2009/09/on-the-precipice

Genius Funds Investments

Advertisement

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Comments (4)

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Delivering the Goods

Posted on 10 April 2011 by Editor

Originally posted 2009-09-15 21:12:40. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building
Image by cliff1066 via Flickr

by Margaret Goodwin
Government is Not Your Daddy
September 14, 2009

The United States rose up from a handful of rebellious colonies to become the richest and most powerful nation in the world. Why? Because we led the world in production. For 200 years, America delivered the goods.

But, in the 1970’s, all that suddenly changed. For the first time in history, the U.S. started having trade deficits. That means our net consumption exceeded our net production. And, every single year since 1975, our nation has consistently consumed more than it produced. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that’s not sustainable.

The depressing truth is America is no longer a world leader in production. We are trailing the pack. We are now a debtor nation, and our biggest creditor is China. — What the hell happened? And how will we ever recover? And, the more disturbing question is, what will happen to America if we don’t?

If we ever want to restore America to its proper place in the world, the first thing we need to understand is why we no longer have a productive economy. It’s pretty simple, really. — Because we no longer produce. Why not? – If we take a good hard look at the nature of production, maybe we can figure that out. The three key elements of production are capital, labor, and raw materials.

First, you need capital for research and development. To develop a new product that meets a real need in the marketplace takes a lot of research. It may take many years to develop. Research and development is extremely expensive, and there’s no guarantee of success. There has to be an enormous potential return on investment to justify that kind of risk.

That kind of return on investment is what our current administration refers to as “excessive profits.” And they have this notion that “excessive profits” should be punitively taxed. When government puts a lid on the potential for return on investment, what happens? The investors take their capital and invest it someplace else, — someplace that welcomes production, and wants to build up their economy and provide employment for their population. (Unlike the United States, it would seem.)

The second thing you need for production is raw materials. No matter what you want to produce, you need some combination of raw materials to produce it, whether wood, paper, metal, glass, fiber, or petroleum products. All raw materials come from the earth; they don’t come out of the air, or some genius’ imagination, or the printing presses at the Federal Reserve. They all come out of the ground, either through timber, mining, or agriculture.

Here, in Southern Oregon, we live in one of the richest areas in the country, in terms of natural resources. We’re rich in timber. We’re rich in minerals. But, if this part of the country is so rich, why is it so poor? Why is unemployment so high? Because we’re not allowed to use the natural resources with which we’re abundantly blessed. Overregulation, and the endless environmental litigation it has spawned, has all but curtailed the timber and mining industries, — the very industries that provide raw materials for every sort of production on which our economy relies. And the overregulation doesn’t stop there. It’s hobbling the manufacturing industries, too.

The third thing required for production is labor. We’ve actually got a surplus of that. Look at our unemployment numbers, nationwide. Private sector jobs are steadily declining because our industries are stymied by excessive regulation and punitive taxation. So how does our government address that issue? It tries to replace the jobs lost due to declining production by creating new jobs in the public sector.

The trouble is those jobs do nothing to restore our national productivity. Public sector jobs and service jobs don’t create any new wealth. They just swirl money around in the economy. And, as that money swirls around, more and more of it leaks out to other countries, as we buy foreign-made products because we can’t or don’t produce enough at home.

As the real wealth leaks out of our economy, the Fed prints up more and more new money, which only dilutes the value of the money we already have in circulation, leading to higher and higher inflation. As long as we consume more than we produce, there is no way to add real value back into our economy, and our currency will continue to lose whatever value it has. We must restore production to have a sustainable economy.

This country was founded on the sacred principles of liberty and freedom. Not just individual freedom, but economic freedom. America became a world leader because America delivered the goods. That’s what it’s all about. That’s what it’s always been about. We have to stay solvent to preserve our liberty. If our economy fails, we’ll lose our freedom. Stifling production smothers the economy. And that’s what our government is doing.

Contact your Congressmen and Senators and tell them we want our economy back. Government can’t solve the problem. Government is the problem. Give us back our economy, and get government out of the way!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Margaret Goodwin writes for the Government is Not Your Daddy blog.

Article published with the author’s permission.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

White Pride

Posted on 10 April 2011 by Editor

Originally posted 2009-11-17 12:58:35. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

blackpridewhiteprideby Nancy Morgan
RightBias.com
November 16, 2009

 

I’m a proud White-Irish-American and I’d like to celebrate my unique culture and heritage. Though I personally had no part in it, my white European ancestors were the ones who founded the greatest country the world has ever known. For all of you progressives out there, I’m referring to America.
 
Yup. My white ancestors founded and conquered it. Just like countries, states and tribes have been doing since time immemorial.

My white European ancestors then established a framework (hint: the Constitution) that allowed immigrants from all over the world a place where they could be free of tyrannical dictators and oppressive government. Its called America -and it stands for freedom. My ancestors fought and died for it and then offered it to the world.
 
Since man is not perfect, (except for Obama) there were a few hitches along the way. But hey, I’m willing to forgive the ignorant few that followed the cultural dictates of the past – the ones who posted signs saying ‘No Irish Need Apply.’ That bigotry was a product of the times and America finally did the right thing by abolishing it.

Of course, there are still those who choose to dwell in the past. Just last week a Nigerian rights group sent a letter to African chiefs demanding they apologize for the role they played in the slave trade. “We cannot continue to blame the white men, as Africans particularly the traditional rulers, are not blameless.”
 
Personally, I believe trying to address historical grievances is counter-productive. Progressives have repeatedly stressed the importance of ‘moving-on,’ and I think they have a good point.
 
With the coming of Obama and the progessive agenda, all groups, countries, and cultures are deemed equal. Now its totally OK to celebrate my own group-identity. Especially since taking pride in belonging to the broader, American culture is looked upon with such disfavor. 
 
Since I’m not willing to identify myself solely by my sexual orientation, or my gender, or my politics – or as a victim, or as one of the disenfranchised, that leaves only one group with whom I totally identify: The politically incorrect group of Americans who demand to be judged strictly on merit.

Unfortunately, that’s a no-no in today’s political and cultural environment. I guess I’ll have to be content with just celebrating the color of my skin, like everyone else does.
 
I’m proud to be white. There, I’ve said it. But I’m getting confused…. A Tennessee state trooper who sent an e-mail proclaiming white pride, has just been suspended for 15 days without pay and will have to attend diversity training. Does this mean white people can’t celebrate their own culture?
 
Not very long ago, before the Nazis came along, white pride was, well, pride in being white. People like myself whose ancestors were white Europeans used to take pride in the accomplishments of fellow whites. That pride was acceptable and celebrated. The tremendous influence and contributions made by white Europeans has, alas, been lumped into the discredited category of ‘colonization,’ which we all know is bad. Acknowledgment of white European accomplishments and culture is now deemed racist, which is worse.
 
The fact that many of the countries that were once colonized by Britain are now worse off than when Britain was calling the shots is an inconvenient historical fact. After all, white people of European descent represent a, gasp, superior culture, and that’s not allowed to be discussed or studied. Which is why courses on Western Civilization have been removed from college curriculums in favor of gay studies, Black studies, Chicano studies, women studies, etc.

Never having had the time to study diversity and multiculturalism, however, I remain somewhat confused. Hate crime laws require me to take note of the color of a persons’ skin in order not to offend them, while political correctness demands I ignore a person’s race and their culture when forming an opinion of them. This does not compute. 

Maybe I should join that Tennessee trooper in diversity training so I’ll know for sure what I am allowed to think, feel and say. After all, I don’t want my white skin and American opinions to offend anyone.

Or better yet, why don’t we all just take Martin Luther King’s advice and judge people based on the content of their character instead of the color of their skin? That way we could do away with all those groups that focus on skin color, like the Congressional Black Caucus, and the Hispanic ‘La Raza,’ and start celebrating what we all have in common. Our very own unique American culture, in which we all can and should take tremendous pride, regardless of what color we are.


Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina

Article published with the author’s permission

Comments (3)

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Stars and Stripes at Montebello High

Posted on 10 April 2011 by Editor

Originally posted 2009-07-07 20:01:23. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Even though the incident I am about to describe took place 3 years ago, its meaning is just as applicable today (perhaps even more), as the American identity is continually attacked and diluted through the indiscriminant influx of foreign nationals. While we wholeheartedly support and welcome immigrants who willingly accept our nation as their home, who accept our customs, traditions and way of life, incidents such as this one serve as pointed evidence that we need to recapture the spirit and original intent behind immigration into the United States.

Around noon on Monday March 26, 2006 a group of predominantly Mexican students from a neighboring high school district entered the grounds of Montebello High School (in the suburb of Los Angeles, CA) and in protest over the pending immigration reform legislation, vertically reversed the American flag and replaced the California state flag with that of Mexico, which was flown atop the American flag on the school’s main flagpole.

mex_flag      us_flag      cheerstwo_flags                 

For those not familiar with the codes of flying the “stars and stripes,” an inverted US flag is a sign of distress and call for help. Furthermore, the flag code specifically forbids flying of any flag above the American flag. The symbolism of having placed the Mexican flag above the American flag is deeply saddening and by our customs, a desecration of our national symbol.

No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America.”
Flag Code, Section 8
The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing.”
Flag Code, Section 8j

Read the full Flag Code

All of us are offspring of immigrants who once came to these shores and labored to build this country into the magnificent land that we call the United States of America. It is our home. Each of our ancestors made it better for the next generation of immigrants. Each of them, brick by proverbial brick, contributed to the amalgam that we now call the American culture. We’ve drawn our strengths from the positive contributions that each wave of immigrants contributed to the nation as a whole.
 
However, with the passing of the Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965, a social experiment gone awry, the profile of new immigrants arriving to the US dramatically changed. Skill-based quotas which favored productive workers from developed nations were replaced with regional quotas, favoring immigration from “under-represented” (a.k.a. poor) regions of the world. Waves of immigrants contributing to the welfare of the nation were replaced with immigrants who themselves needed support from the social system of their host country. Forty some years later, instead of being the wealth of the nation, immigration has become a cost center.
 
We need to recognize that the present situation is nothing short of a crisis. Uncontrolled immigration is beginning to fundamentally change the very social, political and cultural core of our nation. Districts with large immigrant populations are beginning to enact laws to further benefit an increased influx of more immigrants. Because immigrants draw so heavily on government social programs, their voting record tends to be highly liberal and socialist-leaning, which plays into the hand of statist-liberals favoring a greater influence of government on our lives. And this, of course, will perpetuate until all of our national resources are finally exhausted leading to either a violent national awakening or a disintegration and collapse of our culture as we know it.
 
We should be frequently reminded of the incident at Montebello High School as it is a vivid reminder of the dangerous path we are presently on. The consequences of the vicious circle that uncontrolled immigration produces are not easily reversible. Borrowing a statement from an email being circulated to concerned citizens: 
 

“Pass this along to every American citizen in your address books and to every representative in the state and federal government. If you choose to remain uninvolved, do not be amazed when you no longer have a nation to call your own nor anything you have worked for left since it will be ‘redistributed’ to the activists while you are so peacefully staying out of the ‘fray’.. Check history, it is full of nations/empires that disappeared when its citizens no longer held their core beliefs and values.”

*  *  *  *  *

We welcome your comments and suggestions, either directly inline, or via email to editor@nakedliberty.com. If you would like to have your article published in Naked Liberty, please contact the editor at the above email address.

 

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , ,

Hasan Lawyer Considers Twinkie Defense, “American Panic Defense”

Posted on 10 April 2011 by Editor

Originally posted 2009-11-11 22:47:34. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

A Moment of Silence for Fort Hood

Image by The U.S. Army via Flickr

by Scott Spiegel
ScottSpiegel.com
November 11, 2009

The problem with hate crime legislation is that it creates special classes of minorities who receive greater protection from harassment via harsher penalties for their would-be assailants.  One upshot of this approach is that groups perceived as chronically threatened because of their identity are given greater benefit of the doubt in bias-motivated crimes they commit against other groups.

If there were ever a group that U.S. law should consider shielding through hate crime legislation, it is: Americans.  The U.S. should be uniquely interested in protecting its citizens against attacks for being residents of this country, in the same way it protects its citizens against foreign attacks and its soldiers against enemies on the battleground.

If there were ever a setting in which pro-American hate crime protections should be enforced, it is in the military.  American soldiers, more than any other group, actively display dedication to pro-American ideals.

If there were ever a cultural group in modern times that has demonstrated persistent, widespread hostility toward and willingness to engage in violent attacks against Americans, especially Americans in the military, it is radical Islamists.

Naturally, army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan, who adhered to extremist Islamist ideology, sought connections with Al Qaeda, and shouted “Allahu Akbar!” as he massacred 13 soldiers and wounded dozens at Fort Hood last week, is being portrayed by the mainstream media and the present administration as a guy who needs OSHA counseling.

Muslim apologists have been telling us to not jump to conclusions (except that the killings were caused by stress), that the murders weren’t related to Islam, that it’s “speculation” that the military ignored warning signs regarding Hasan.  We get clueless gems like this from the New York Times on Monday: “It is unclear what might have motivated Major Hasan.”  Wusses like Lindsey Graham don’t help by claiming that the murders were “not about his religion—the fact that this man was a Muslim.”  (Wait—isn’t that a conclusion?)  It takes a hawk like Joe Lieberman to initiate hearings into Hasan’s conduct and the military’s failure to eject him for anti-American actions in which he engaged for years.


In the interest of preventing future attacks, I propose that we learn from the following warning signs:

•    Hasan identified as an Islamic fundamentalist, advocated for Muslims to “rise up and attack Americans” in retaliation for war against Muslims abroad, and espoused anti-Semitic views.

•    Hasan rejoiced over the murder of an army recruiter in Arkansas in June by an American convert to Islam.  According to Colonel Terry Lee, who worked with Hasan at Fort Hood, after the attack Hasan helpfully suggested, “Maybe people should strap bombs on themselves and go to Times Square.”

•    In 2003 Sergeant Hasan Karim Akbar—another American convert—slaughtered two U.S. soldiers and wounded 14 more in a grenade and rifle attack on a base in Kuwait in retaliation for the war in Iraq.  (I wonder how Hasan felt about that?)

•    Classmates in Hasan’s master’s program complained of his anti-American views and his insistence that Sharia outweighs U.S. constitutional law.

•    Fellow psychiatrists reported that, at a Grand Rounds talk during his residency, Hasan lectured his audience on Koranic justice, including the proscription to behead nonbelievers and/or pour hot oil down their throats and set them on fire.  Hasan defended suicide bombers, a position he has taken in postings on jihad-themed websites.

•    Hassan called the war on terror a war on Islam and said that military service for the U.S. is incompatible with Muslim beliefs.  (He may be on to something!  About 0.6% of the country identifies as Muslim, compared to only 0.25% of the military.)  Hasan argued that Muslim soldiers should be exempted from combat due to their status as conscientious objectors.

•    At Fort Hood, Hasan received warnings from supervisors for attempting to convert his patients to Islam, though he maintains it was entirely their choice whether to receive castor oil or hot oil for their remedies.

•    The FBI had been investigating Hasan since 2008 and was aware he had sent dozens of e-mails to Al Qaeda spiritual leader Anwar al-Awlaki.  Hasan and his family attended the mosque in Falls Church, Virginia where al-Awlaki served as imam in the months leading up to September 11 and two of the 9/11 hijackers worshiped.

Even if Hasan’s admonitions to slaughter infidels were not evidence enough to convict him of some kind of crime, he should have been ruled unfit for his position by military officials.

Hate crime legislation has been justified as necessary due to specious defenses offered for crimes against minority groups, such as the claim by lawyers for Harvey Milk’s assassin that junk food contributed to his inability to control his actions, or the “homosexual panic defense” that some who feel threatened by advances from a gay person enter a state of irrationality that prompts them to murderously strike out.  Hate crime laws have also been offered to cover minority groups whom police might not adequately protect due to racial bias.  The solution to specious legal defenses and lapses in police enforcement is to treat members of all groups equally, not some better than others.

As a consequence of this inverted mentality, we are warned by our political leaders to ignore the cause of obviously jihad-motivated killing of U.S. soldiers and swallow spurious explanations for the massacre such as stress over anticipated deployment in Afghanistan or the inability of a trained psychiatrist to listen to stories from combat veterans.

The latest enlightened word, from Fort Hood base commander Lieutenant General Robert Cone, regarding the military’s plan to prevent future violence: “What we’re looking for is people with personal problems, not at all related to their religion—not at all.”

I hear the sugar rush from the Halloween candy civilians sent soldiers in care packages can lead them to do some crazy things.


Scott Spiegel writes for the ScottSpiegel.com blog
Article published with the author’s permission

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Comments (1)

Free Subscription to Naked Liberty Articles
* indicates required
Advertise Here
Advertise Here

TradeTrakker


Our Twitter Followers

Friends: Followers:

Recommended









free counters

Contribute

Other Links

EasyHits4U.com - Your Free Traffic Exchange - 1:1 Exchange Ratio, 5-Tier Referral Program. FREE Advertising!

Yavrim.com - Link to a Random Site. Help Promote Free Traffic Exchange
Subscribe to updates

Get Adobe Flash player