Please donate any amount you can to help us try to recover legal costs in defending liberty and the right of free speech !

How the GOP Should Fix ObamaCare

Republicans are the only ones who can fix President Obama’s broken promise now,obamacare-operation-20140211

The problem is simply stated. Millions will be losing their individual insurance policies that they were promised they could keep. They will be expected to buy more expensive Obama- Care-approved policies than they want or need, and to do so from ObamaCare exchanges that aren’t working.

Mr. Obama’s fix, which he proposed on Thursday and which was quickly debunked by the insurance industry and its state regulators, can’t work because Mr. Obama can’t let it work. He has to fight to preserve the central pur
pose of ObamaCare—to use the individual mandate and ObamaCare’s compulsory benefit list to capture money from unwilling buyers of ObamaCare’s gold-plated insurance policies to subsidize others.

Let’s understand: The stumbling block to fixing Mr. Obama’s broken promise is Democrats clinging to the central redistributive scheme embedded in ObamaCare. There is no reconciling the two.

Americans are beginning to understand that the essence of the Affordable Care Act is that millions of people are being conscripted to buy overpriced insurance they would never choose for themselves in order to afford Mr. Obama monies to spend on the poor and those who are medically uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions. Both Mr. Obama and Republicans are blowing smoke in claiming that the damage done to the individual market by the forced cancellation of “substandard” plans (i.e., those that don’t meet the purposes of ObamaCare) can somehow be reversed at this point. It can’t be.

What can be done is Congress creating a new option in the form of a national health insurance charter under which insurers could design new low-cost policies free of mandated benefits imposed by ObamaCare and the 50 states that many of those losing their individual policies today surely would find attractive.

What’s the first thing the new nationally chartered insurers would do? Rush out cheap, high-deductible policies, allaying some of the resentment that the ObamaCare mandate provokes among the young, healthy and footloose affluent.
These folks could buy the minimalist coverage that (for various reasons) makes sense for them. They wouldn’t be forced to buy excessive coverage they don’t need to subsidize the old and sick.

If this idea sounds familiar, it was proposed right here three years ago, after the 2010 elections in which Democrats lost the House due to public disquiet over ObamaCare.

Because such a move could be sold as expanding the options under ObamaCare and lessening the burden of an unpopular mandate, it always had potential to draw Democratic support. That’s doubly true now that Democrats are saddled with President Obama’s promise that anybody who liked their existing insurance can keep it. Mr. Obama’s promise is not literally keepable but the national charter would be the next best thing, letting millions find policies that are a good deal for them in their particular circumstances.

And, yes, this would also blow up the disingenuous financial engine of ObamaCare. This is a feature not a bug.
The ObamaCare exchanges would devolve into refuges for those who are medically uninsurable. But this seems increasingly likely to happen anyway. Having assumed the job of subsidizing the people, the federal government should do so honestly and openly and efficiently.
ObamaCare is dead on the vine. It becomes clearer by the day the only way insurers can make the Obama benefits package work at a monthly premium affordable by healthy people who don’t qualify for subsidies is with massive deductibles and copays. ObamaCare’s individual mandate, as philosophically odious as some find it, would survive. An admirable principle buried in ObamaCare— that subsidies should be reserved for the needy— would also survive.

What wouldn’t survive is the Democratic scheme to force everyone, regardless of age and actuarial risk, to buy a gold-plated pack- s age of benefits that will | stimulate a wasteful £> race to spend more S resources on health care. And, down the road, by reforming ObamaCare, much else could be reformed, including Medicare and the ill-begotten and destructive link between employment and health care.
This outcome will shock liberals who have single-payer sugar plums dancing in their head right now. Let’s leave them with one thought.
The government-run systems you so admire in other countries mostly came about long ago. They came about to expand access to medical care at a time when medical care couldn’t do all that much for people. We live in a different age. America, let’s face it, would be embarking on a single-payer system not to expand access—though that slogan would be used—but to deny and limit care in order to control runaway spending.

Liberals, you think you want to go there but you don’t.



The gas company serving this area brought their call center back to Phoenix from India last year after numerous customer complaints. What a difference now when you call them…and it created 300 jobs. I know this works because they were so bad that when India answered I wouldn’t even deal with them. I’d simply ask to be transferred to a supervisor in the U.S. and they would comply.

Any time you call an 800 number (for a credit card, banking, Verizon, health and other insurance, computer help desk, etc.) and you find that you’re talking to a foreign customer service representative (perhaps in India, Philippines, etc.), please consider doing the following:
After you connect and you realize that the customer service representative is not from the USA (you can always ask if you are not sure about the accent), please, very politely (this is not about trashing other cultures) say, “I’d like to speak to a customer service representative in the United States of America
The rep might suggest talking to his/her manager, but, again, politely say, “Thank you, but I’d like to speak to a customer service representative in the USA.”
It takes less than one minute to have your call re-directed to the USA.
Tonight when I got redirected to a USA rep, I asked again to make sure – and yes, she was from Fort Lauderdale.
Imagine what would happen if every US citizen insisted on talking to only US phone reps from this day on.
Imagine how that would ultimately impact the number of US jobs that would need to be created ASAP.
If I tell 10 people to consider this and you tell 10 people to consider doing this – see what I mean…it becomes an exercise in viral marketing 101.
You may even get correct answers, good advice, and solutions to your problem – in real English

GEORGE SOROS WANTS TO DUMB DOWN OUR POPULATION – We Apparently are Falling into His Trap

How twin drug epidemics – one illegal; the other legal are turning America into a nation of addicts

A new national love affair is blossoming in America
– a giddy, almost celebratory infatuation with marijuana. But that’s just the beginning of the story.

We are about to explore what is really unfolding in the once-noblest nation on earth, starting with the legalization of marijuana, but then broadening our scope to reveal, quite incredibly, that America today is being transformed into an entire nation strung out on mind-altering drugs.
The reader is already no doubt familiar with the legalization of “medical marijuana” – which, despite some apparently legitimate medicinal uses, has degenerated into a national farce, with people being encouraged to score marijuana prescriptions not just for oft-cited maladies like cancer and glaucoma, but for conditions ranging from headaches to diarrhea, whiplash, stuttering and eczema. Also panic attacks, autism, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, Alzheimers, incontinence, nightmares, AIDS, tobacco dependence and menopause. And genital herpes. In other words, smoking pot, we’re being told, is good for pretty much everything that ails us.
Then on Jan. 1, flat-out legalization took center stage, when Colorado and Washington opened their doors to exhilarated pot-smokers, while numerous other states – from Alaska, Oregon and California in the west to Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Washington, D.C. in the east – announced plans to push for legalization in the coming months.
Already, stock prices for cannabis companies are soaring (“The demand for marijuana is insatiable,” says one entrepreneur, “you have a feeding frenzy for the birth of a new industry”), the New York City-based publication “High Times” has announced a new private- equity fund to “raise $ 100 million over the next two years to invest in cannabis-related businesses,” and ad agencies are GEARING UP TO SUPPORT AN INDUSTRY estimated to already be generating revenues in the billions of dollars.”
Likewise, the entertainment industry has long been on board. While hit shows like “Glee,” “Parenthood” and “Mad Men” portray cannabis consumption in a positive light, Hollywood’s “beautiful people” lead pot’s de facto PR campaign. There’s actor Morgan Freeman, who told the London’s Guardian he’ll “never give up the ganja,” calling it “God’s own weed.” And Whoopi Goldberg, who was high when she accepted the Oscar for her role in “Ghost” (later saying, “I learned a great lesson, though. Never smoke pot before there’s a possibility of having to talk to a hundred million people”).
The list of admitted, current pot-smokers runs the gamut from actresses like Jennifer Aniston, Cameron Diaz, Susan Sarandon and Kristin Duntz (“If everyone smoked weed, the world would be a better place”), to director Oliver Stone (well, of course) and every singer imaginable – including Justin Bieber, Willie Nelson, Lady Gaga (“I smoke a lot of pot when I write music”) and Justin Timberlake (“Sometimes I have a brain that needs to be turned off. Some people are just better high”).
Now – that is, if we can all just come back down to earth for a moment – let s put this development in context:
While America in the Age of Obama spins spectacularly out of control – as her culture, morals, laws, institutions, government, economy and overall wellbeing continue to disintegrate before our eyes, and as the forces of evil worldwide wax stronger and more menacing in the shadow of Americas ever-growing feebleness – our solution is: Get high!
This disturbing trend is reflected in a recent CNN poll headlined “Support for legal marijuana soaring.”
“In a major turnaround from past decades, a majority of Americans support legalizing marijuana,” trumpets the network. With 55 percent now favoring legalization (a similar Gallup poll shows 58 percent), support “has steadily soared over the past quarter century – from 16 percent in 1987 to 26 percent in 1996, 34 percent in 2002, and 43 percent just two years ago.”
The poll’s biggest surprise was the number of people who no longer consider smoking pot immoral. In 1987, seven in 10 Americans believed it was, “making it a sin in the minds of more Americans than abortion or pornography,” said the report.

Today, that number has been cut in half, with just 35 percent of Americans having any moral problem with potsmoking, a conclusion bolstered by Barack Obama who recently equated pot with alcohol and tobacco, telling the New Yorker, “I don’t think it is more dangerous than alcohol.” Obama, who admits he “smoked pot as a kid,” even told interviewer David Remnick he viewed marijuana as “not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life.”

Hit the pause-button, please: Seeing “recreational” pot use as moral is much more consequential than it might seem. For many, legal equals moral. So not only does calling something moral lead to its legalization, but once legal – whether it’s abortion, same-sex marriage, polygamy, marijuana or other drugs – millions now come to regard the forbidden as moral. That in turn multiplies the numbers of participants – it happens every time.

This syndrome was exemplified when abortion was legalized. As Bernard Nathanson, M.D., co-founder of NARAL and one of the early architects of the movement to legalize abortion, admitted to me in an interview years ago, “[We told the public] legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1,500 percent since legalization.”

To this day, more than a million babies are aborted annually in America. Likewise, pot legalization is already turning Colorado and Washington into havens for the outright celebration and encouragement of every aspect of marijuana cultivation, marketing, sale and consumption. But that is just the beginning.

Somehow, in all the hoopla, it apparently doesn’t register that pot use lowers the IQ of young people. A massive, four- decade study published in 2012 by the National Academy of Sciences, titled “Persistent cannabis users show neuropsychological decline from childhood to midlife,” followed more than 1,000 subjects from birth until they were 38 years old! The researchers’ core finding? Repeated marijuana use by teenagers lowers their IQ – permanently.
And if irreversible “neuropsychological decline” and other long-proven hazards of cannabis aren’t enough, a loud discordant note is being sounded right at ground zero by Dr. Christian Thurstone, professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado. As head of an adolescent rehab center called STEP (Substance Abuse Treatment Education & Prevention), Thurstone says virtually all of the patient referrals to his program – 95 percent of them – result from marijuana use.
“But,” some might protest, “I thought marijuana was, you know, mellow, and not bad for you like alcohol and tobacco.”
Not exactly, says the doc, who told ABC News, “Were seeing kids in treatment here who have paranoia and seeing things and hearing things that aren’t there. Adolescent exposure to marijuana [raises] risk of permanent psychosis in adulthood.”
Just what a seriously troubled America needs right now – hordes of new psychotics!
Since so many people are interested in getting high these days, let’s get way high – like 35,000 feet up – and survey a broad aerial panorama of the American mindscape.
First, the stats. According to a 2010 study by the federal Department of Health and Human Services, over 22 million Americans use illegal drugs, comprising marijuana/ hashish, cocaine (including crack), heroin, hallucinogens, inhalants or prescription-type psychiatric drugs used without a prescription, A few highlights as of 2010 – and remember, the trend is strongly upwards since then:
22.6 million Americans aged 12 or older – that’s 8.9 percent – were current illicit drug users.
Marijuana was the most commonly used illicit drug, with 17.4 million users.
There were also 1.5 million cocaine users aged 12 and up, plus 1.2 million using hallucinogens (including 695,000 taking Ecstasy), and another 353,000 using metham- phetamine.
7 million people aged 12 or older used prescription-type psychotherapeutic drugs non-medically in the previous month.
10.6 million Americans aged 12 or older – 4.2 percent – reported driving under the influence of illicit drugs during the past year.
As of 2010, some 1,700 new people per used cocaine for the first time (in at least a year), 384 new users tried heroin for the first time each day, and 288 newbies started on methamphetamine. Each day, some 3,288 started on hallucinogens, 1,033 took LSD for the first time, 2,567 were initiated into Ecstasy, 2,173 started on inhalants, and a mind-boggling 6,575 new people 12 and up started using illegally obtained psychotherapeutics. Remember, that’s every single day.
In short: Over 20 million of us are strung out on illegal drugs and fully half of those admit to driving on the public roadways under the influence of drugs!
Now, when we think of driving “under the influence,” our minds turn to alcohol, so fasten your seat belts:
In 2010, nearly one-quarter of all Americans aged 12 and up participated in binge drinking, about 58.6 million people. (“Binge drinking” meant having five or more drinks on the same occasion on at least one day in the 30 days prior to the survey.)
Heavy drinking was reported 16.9 million people 12 and older. (“Heavy drinking” meant binge drinking on at least five days in the past 30 days.)
Among young adults aged 18 to 25, the rate of binge drinking was an astonishing 40.6 percent, and the rate of heavy drinking 13.6 percent.
•An estimated 10 million underage (12 to 20) drinkers included 6.5 million binge drinkers and 2 million heavy drinkers.
An estimated 11.4 percent of persons 12 or older drove under the influence of alcohol at least once in the past year.
Bottom line, according to the Department of Health and Human Services: “In an average year 30 million Americans drive drunk [and] 10 million drive impaired by illicit drugs.”
In case you’re concerned about tobacco – and yes, nicotine is a drug (stimulant), and yes, every year tobacco kills more Americans than died in World War II – the same federal study showed that about one in three Americans use it, with 58.3 million Americans smoking cigarettes, 13.2 million smoking cigars, 8.9 million using smokeless tobacco and 2.2 million smoking tobacco in pipes.

With well over 80 million Americans thus stupefied on illegal drugs or excessive alcohol and 40 million of them driving under the influence, the nation undeniably suffers from a massive “substance-abuse” problem.
But there is another parallel drug problem, the devastation of which is arguably just as severe and detrimental to American society as that involving illegal drugs and alcohol abuse – some would say it’s actually worse.
And that is the astonishingly vast, and rapidly increasing, number of people taking medically prescribed but poorly understood, mind-altering psychiatric drugs.
Ironically, after marijuana (which is rapidly becoming legal), the most-abused drugs in America are psychiatric drugs, obtained and used “non-medically,” that is, without a prescription from a doctor.
As revealed in a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in one recent year “approximately 27,000 unintentional drug overdose deaths occurred in the United States, one death every 19 minutes.” Surprisingly, states the CDC, “Prescription drug abuse is the fastest growing drug problem in the United States.”
The skyrocketing rate of drug overdose death rates “has been driven,” says the report, “by increased use of a class of prescription drugs called opioid analgesics” – drugs like hy- drocodone (brand names Norco, Vicodin), hydromorphone (Dilaudid, Exalgo), oxycodone (OxyContin, Percocet) and morphine (Astramorph, Avinza).
“Opioid analgesics suppress your perception of pain,” explains WebMD, “and calm your emotional response to pain by reducing the number of pain signals sent by the nervous system and the brain’s reaction to those pain signals.” For the last decade, “more overdose deaths have involved opioid analgesics than heroin and cocaine combined,” reports the CDC. In addition, “for every unintentional overdose death related to an opioid analgesic, nine persons are admitted for substance abuse treatment, 35 visit emergency departments, 161 report drug abuse or dependence, and 461 report nonmedical uses of opioid analgesics.”
In other words, we’re talking about an epidemic.
America’s traditional drug paradigm has been something like this: On the one hand is the respectable, legal, medical world where enlightened doctors prescribe their patients wonder drugs that relieve their symptoms and make them feel more comfortable – OxyContin, anti-anxiety drugs (Valium, Xanax), sleeping pills, stimulants, mood stabilizers, and more recently, marijuana, hallucinogens and so forth.
On the other hand is the sleazy, criminal world of drug pushers who supply low-life users and addicts with drugs to satiate their habits, make them feel better and relieve their stresses, troubles and anxieties – drugs like OxyContin and other illegally obtained psych meds, marijuana, stimulants, cocaine, hallucinogens and so forth.
If the distinction between legal and illegal seems disturbingly indistinct and fluid – in some ways even unreal , it gets much more bizarre.
By David Kupelian


Tom Steyer’s Keystone Victorysteyer2-600x340
The billionaire getting the most political bang for his buck is Tom Steyer. The hedge-fund politico has pledged to raise $100 million to help Democrats keep the Senate, and on Friday he received a major return on his investment when the State Department again delayed its decision on the Keystone XL pipeline.
State’s excuse is that it wants to wait on the outcome of a legal challenge in Nebraska, but that’s no reason for the federal government not to declare itself. Earlier this year State’s latest environmental review found no net climate harm from the pipeline, which would take oil from Alberta to refineries on the Gulf Coast. State found that the oil sands will be developed even if the Keystone XL isn’t built.

The real reason for the delay is Democratic politics. Mr. Steyer and the party’s liberal financiers are climate-change absolutists who have made killing Keystone a non-negotiable demand. But the White House doesn’t want to reject the pipeline before November because several Senate Democrats running for re-election claim to favor it. We say “claim” because Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu and others can’t even get Majority Leader Harry Reid to give them a vote on the floor.
So Senate Democrats get to have it both ways. They can benefit this year from the riches of Mr. Steyer, who pronounced himself well pleased by the delay. But they can also run in support of the XL pipeline and the thousands of new jobs it would create. Then President Obama can formally nix it next year.


Would We the People Ratify the Constitution Today?

We the People are the opening words of the preamble to the Constitution.  Many patriots glory in that name, “We the People” holding it aloft as a banner against the encroachments of an ever expanding central government.   In the minds of many it is connected somehow to Lincoln’s famous description of America’s government, “Of the People, by the people and for the people.”

Both of these were revolutionary terms when first spoken.

The people of the founding generation did not think of themselves as “Americans,” instead they saw themselves as citizens of their respective States.  The thirteen colonies, with the singular exception of North and South Carolina, were each founded as separate entities.  Each had its own history and relationship with the crown.  They banded together for the Revolution during which they established the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation.  This established a confederation composed of thirteen independent States.

When the secretly drafted Constitution was finally revealed to the public many of the leading lights of the Revolution were enraged by what they saw as a counter-revolution seeking to supplant the legally constituted Confederation of States in favor of a consolidated central government.   Some of them say the truth was revealed in the first three words, “We the People.”

Every school child can recite the most famous words of Patrick Henry, “Give me liberty or give me death.”  You probably said those words in your head before you read them once you saw his name.  He is synonymous with America’s defiance to tyranny.  While these famous words ring in the heads of all, few know his opinion on the Constitution.

At the Virginia Ratification Convention in 1788, Patrick Henry said,

And here I would make this inquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late federal Convention. I am sure they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated government, instead of a confederation. That this is a consolidated government is demonstrably clear; and the danger of such a government is, to my mind, very striking. I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states.

Ever since the Civil War fatally warped the original federal structure and We the People became a reality the central government of the United States has assumed more and more power until today totalitarianism appears to be within its grasp.  I am not referring to the crude overt totalitarianism of a Nazi Germany or a Soviet Russia instead I am referring to a soft totalitarianism, a kind of nanny state smothering of individual freedom, personal liberty and economic opportunity.  After the complete subjugation of the States to the central government by the Lincoln administration combined with the increased mobility of the modern era, we the people actually became the way most people think of themselves.

In America today we have a president who in a 2001 interview expressed his inner most thoughts about the Constitution,

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

That is as clear a statement of the way our Progressive leaders view America’s founding document, a charter of negative liberties.  A charter that they believe needs to be expanded with a second bill of rights first proposed by FDR in his 1944 State of the Union Address,

  1. A realistic tax law—which will tax all unreasonable profits, both individual and corporate, and reduce the ultimate cost of the war to our sons and daughters. The tax bill now under consideration by the Congress does not begin to meet this test.
  2. A continuation of the law for the renegotiation of war contracts—which will prevent exorbitant profits and assure fair prices to the Government. For two long years I have pleaded with the Congress to take undue profits out of war.
  3. A cost of food law—which will enable the Government (a) to place a reasonable floor under the prices the farmer may expect for his production; and (b) to place a ceiling on the prices a consumer will have to pay for the food he buys. This should apply to necessities only; and will require public funds to carry out. It will cost in appropriations about one percent of the present annual cost of the war.
  4. Early reenactment of the stabilization statute of October, 1942. This expires June 30, 1944, and if it is not extended well in advance, the country might just as well expect price chaos by summer. We cannot have stabilization by wishful thinking. We must take positive action to maintain the integrity of the American dollar.
  5. A national service law—which, for the duration of the war, will prevent strikes, and, with certain appropriate exceptions, will make available for war production or for any other essential services every able-bodied adult in this Nation.

According to Cass R. Sunstein, the former administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, President Obama not only believes in FDR’s Second Bill of Rights he seeks to implement them,

As the actions of his first term made clear, and as his second inaugural address declared, President Barack Obama is committed to a distinctive vision of American government. It emphasizes the importance of free enterprise, and firmly rejects “equality of result,” but it is simultaneously committed to ensuring both fair opportunity and decent security for all.

In these respects, Obama is updating Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Second Bill of Rights.

We are in the grip of the Federalists on steroids bent on redistributing their way to total power.  The question before us today is, “Would we the people ratify the Constitution today?”

Even Conservatives believe in a safety net.  Everyone contributes to and hopes to receive from Social Security.  No one wants people dying in the streets because they can’t get medical care so Medicaid is available to the uninsured.  Of course Medicare is considered a right for anyone over 65.  Unemployment is an accepted part of the safety net as are food stamps.  If you add up what is already accepted and expected then throw Obamacare into the mix and you see we have become a society addicted to entitlements all of which would fail the test of a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

The 10th Amendment says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  The power to do any of these entitlements is not delegated anywhere in the document as it is written, only as it is interpreted.

So would we the people ratify the Constitution as it is written today?  I think not.  A living document has turned the Constitution into a dead letter and the entitlements we have all accepted have turned the descendants of the Founders, Framers, and Pioneers into supplicants standing before the federal throne waiting for a check.

Only a re-birth of self-reliance, a renaissance of historical perspective and renewed political activity have a chance to bring about a rebirth of liberty in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Keep the faith.  Keep the peace.  We shall overcome.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ © 2014 Contact Dr. Owens Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens


Uninformed Voters Read This……


Please donate any amount you can to help us try to recover legal costs in defending liberty and the right of free speech !