I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Aww, he's probably right.
Look again at that list of miserable, single-and-simple-minded, war mongering holier-than-thou group of people.
If they constituted your family, do you think anybody would want to get together much? Could you imagine Thanksgiving Dinner with that bunch of know-it-alls?
Nothing self-centered people like that dislike more than other people just as self-centered.
That's pretty much spot-on. If you just looked at the list of PNAC luminaries, you'd know that Brooks was talking complete shite, or, to use the vernacular, he was lying. The one beef I have with the paragraph is that Black is no longer in charge of Hollinger; apparently, the people who invested their money in 'his' venture decided that indeed, they did own a piece of it, and weren't just handing Black money.
It could have happened to a nicer guy, but it wouldn't be nearly as enjoyable to watch.
It's not fair to actually fact check David's statements. He was probably speaking metaphorically not literally.
Next, you'll probably be checking the new budget for accuracy. Read it like a novel. For the deeper insights.
You mean neocons really do Conspire together? And here I thought I was just being paranoid.
I have been searching for "Up From Conservatism" at the local bookstores for some time. It's hard to find, perhaps because it's an older book (1996 I think).
The local public library has it, I put a hold on it and had them transfer it to a closer branch library. I go over there today to pick it up. Looking forward to reading it.
I don't know why, but for some reason the first thing that came into my head when I read that was:
da da DA da da da DA. da. DAAAAH...
You know--the opening notes of the banjo theme from Deliverance.
thank you Atrios.
Dear Sulzberger:
How long can Brooks tell such obvious lies and keep his job?
love
56k
PS - your board of directors has no confidence in your leadership
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=nyt
These are people who, according to David Brooks, "don't actually have much contact with one another."
There's also no such thing as the Religious Right.
I'd love to see a diagram of that paragraph.
Yo, quiddity, we gotta job for you!
"don't actually have much contact"
Like when Brooks' parrots Shulsky and Schmitt's argument and doesn't credit them?
Everybody needs to take the time to read Lind's entire article. It's an eye-opener. How in the hell did this country end up commandeered by crazed ideologists? I'm afraid it's because the rest of us, thanks to a comatose media, were happy to remain fast asleep.
Reads like the Bible--all those 'begats' got me confused. So I'll just assume Brooks was telling the truth...
These connections are all pretty well established-- Justin Raimondo at Anti-War.com has been talking about these guys for a few years. Also all of the real neocons are jews. Not sure what that means-- but surely we can criticize them without being called neocons.
whoops-- "but surely we can criticize them without being called anti-semites".
whoops-- "but surely we can criticize them without being called anti-semites".
whoops-- sorry for the double post.
Define "contact"? These this little group is breeding.
Just as long as the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' doesn't get reprinted... whew. I second Chris' thought that even sane people can feel like donning tinfoil hats when faced with all this. Even if the one-to-one contact between these people is minimal as Brooks suggests, the ideological cross-fertilisation ought not to be overlooked.
No doubt members of the political right will look askance at the curious 'conspiracies' of the blogosphere, but at least the blogs don't make millions...
If David Brooks is really concerned about crypto-anti-Semitism, he would do well to read Up From Conservatism. The central episode in the book is Pat Robertson's quite unambiguous, unequivocal anti-Semitism, and the conservative movement's silence and acquiescence in the face of it.
Oh, and it's genuinely encouraging to see the Nation publishing the work of avowed centrist Michael Lind. Now, if they'd just have a looney purge, and get rid of the Alexander Cockburn element, I'd not only read them more regularly but likely subscribe.
Reads like the Bible--all those 'begats' got me confused.
Right--but I don't think even the Bible has that much inbreeding.
My earlier snarky allusion to incest and mental deficiency notwithstanding, this is a very real issue. The neocons (in particular the elites listed in the article) consider themselves to be intellectuals and, essentially, "academics" that just can't get top university jobs because of left-wing bias. Hence the think tanks with the phony patina of academia, in which position papers consisting of little more than talking points are usually given the look and feel of research articles.
The problem is, neocon intellectuals have failed to adhere to one of the most fundamental (if unwritten) rules of academia: intellectual incest is to be assiduously avoided.
A healthy academic faculty will almost never contain members that did their graduate work within the same department, and rarely within the even the same university. (MIT and Cal Tech are possible exceptions, but that is another story...)
The reason is that in the pursuit of knowledge, as in the generation of life, diversity is needed to avoid degeneracy and error.
The incestuous, self congratulatory nature of neocon elites does much to explain how they can simultaneously be soooo damn clever, and so horribly and consistently wrong.
"Dear Sulzberger:
How long can Brooks tell such obvious lies and keep his job?"
About as long as Judy Miller can tell obvious lies and keep hers.
How in the hell did this country end up commandeered by crazed ideologists?
12 December 2000. Five Supreme Court justices selected George W. Bush to be our Glorious Leader.
Who benefits the most from this unholy alliance between the neocons and the crazed right? The right's recent fondness for the Jews (a "tribe" which they formerly despised)is supposedly based on their wacko "end-times" beliefs. Maybe Mel Gibson's forthcoming epic will drive a wedge between these disparate groups.
As Paul Simon sang, perhaps :
"A loose association of millionaires and billionaires, and baby... these are the days of miracle and wonder."
The lyrics maven,
Brooks can keep his lying self in work because he works for the New York Times, that means never having to say you're sorry.
I wish I could remember the Jules Feiffer play that touched on that theme.
Maybe Mel Gibson's forthcoming epic will drive a wedge between these disparate groups.
The truth is, wedges abound in the ruling coalition. Too bad we don't have an opposition party that can exploit them.
Mondo, indeed - to drive a wedge you need a tough enough hammer.
Alex,
Also all of the real neocons are jews. Not sure what that means-- but surely we can criticize them without being called anti-semitic.
Sorry, but as a liberal Jew, I take umbrage at that statement. If it's not anti-Semitic, then why even bring up the fact that some of them are Jewish?
And your gross generalization that "all of the real neocons are jews" is ridiculous.
I really hope we aren't seeing the dawn of a flipped logic that implies that all Jews are neocons, since I am sure you know nothing could be further from the truth, even when it comes to Israel. I happen to oppose Sharon's policies.
It would be interesting to trace the history of the right-wing shift among some members of the Jewish community. There's probably a Zionist twist in there somewhere.
Having said that, it does sadden me that even one Jew would undo decades of social activism and progressive thinking by aligning with reactionaries.
As a final thought ... we're all in this together, folks. Let's not bring ethnicity into the argument unless it is really relevant.
"The Next American Nation" by Lind is also good. Best read in conjunction with Noel Ignatin's "How the Irish Became White."
Good point Brooklyn Girl. And you are no doubt sensitized to the way in which the right uses ethnicity (?), i.e., Jewishness, to inoculate from criticism, precisely along the lines of what Brooks did. Perhaps this is what you are saying in part.
anti-Sharon
anti-AIPAC does not=anti-semitism
anti-Zionism
I really hope we aren't seeing the dawn of a flipped logic that implies that all Jews are neocons...
That's the problem, Brooklyn Girl. No one is saying that.
The fact (and yes, it is a fact) that many of the leading Neocon figures (including, for example, the founders of the movement) are Jewish (not to mention Likud-sympathizers) is used by the Neocons to accuse their critics of being antisemitic--or, if they're Jewish critics, then they use the ever-popular "self hating Jew" tag.
I still love Josh Marshall's quip that he was fed up with the Neocon apologists being "Jewlier than thou".
David Brooks is a smarmy turd of a man.
whoops-- "but surely we can criticize them without being called anti-semites".
Alex | Email | Homepage | 02.07.04 - 10:53 am | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
No you can't, little man. Go rack up your credit card and vote GOP, or else the faggots will take over.
"And your gross generalization that "all of the real neocons are jews" is ridiculous."
I don't think so actually.
Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are sometimes called neocons. But they aren't really neocons. They aren't clear members of that movement. PNAC'ers for instance aren't all neocons.
Challenge-- name a "neocon" who isn't jewish. All those people in that excerpt Atrios cites are jewish, for instance.
And it's not that I have anything against jews. I truly don't. And surely I don't think that all jews are neocons.
As mondo dentro points out-- the fact that they tend to be jewish makes it too easy for defenders of neocons to call someone anti-semitic if they criticize the neocons.
However, the fact that the core neocons are jewish must mean something. I just don't know what it means--except it probably has to do with the origins of the movement and that it started with a group of jews who had certain political beliefs.
Notice how the neocons now encourage phrases like "the people labeled neocons" as if they've been labelled by others, not themselves. They do the same thing with their attempts to paint people who criticise neocons as anti-Semites who are using "neocon" as shorthand for "Jew" (which no one I know of does).
This indicates that they are aware of how out of touch they are with the hoi polloi and how unpopular their positions are with most Americans. They want to attempt to distance themselves from the label they placed on themselves, as well as now trying to distance themselves from each other.
It's an interesting development, esp. along with things like the Kerr campaign, showing that even the insiders are becoming aware that they are unloved. Watch out, even a cornered mouse will fight and bite, and we're gonna see some nasty attacks this year from these winger mice. Get your shots first -- information at your fingertips, in the form of bookmarks, etc., will innoculate you.
Alex,
Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are sometimes called neocons. But they aren't really neocons. They aren't clear members of that movement.
Huh? Please point me towards the Official Definition of Neocon and exactly where I can find the Neocon Movement's Manifesto.
Caught The Frump on Canada's Crossroads Television System (Family oriented, Christian-based, so-on and so-barf) two days ago, flooging his doorstopper and aswering little old ladies' paranoid questions regarding Al-Qaeda recruiting in Montréal mosques (his response "these are the most important questions of our times."...etc.). I'm pretty sure I'll be seeing David Frum Thightmaster infomercials in a very near future. You heard it here first.
Sorry but neocon is a Zionist Jewish thing. They want to use US imperialism to make the world safe for Israel. Why do we have to be all tippy toe chicken shit about saying it.
Please point me towards the Official Definition of Neocon and exactly where I can find the Neocon Movement's Manifesto.
Brooklyn Girl, if you think ideologies have "official definitions", perhaps it would be wise to think again. Not all movements can be so easily tied up with a little bow, especially when they are still in the making.
On the other hand, if you really want a manifesto, there are many you could choose from. The PNAC web site comes to mind. Or any one of a number of things by Leo Strauss. How about
this gem from Irving Kristol?
"...one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against
their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy." [emphasis added]
Based the above, and a cursory knowledge of the careers of both Cheney and Rumsfeld, I think the case could be made that both of these guys are part of those who have been "converted". Hence, the idea that they're not "real" neocons has some weight.
It's the con that's important not the neo. So many of the "jewish" and even "zionist" neocons have given a pass to real, get the showers ready, anti-Semites or at least their allies (listening, Medved?). Their ethnic identity isn't very important or their positions coherent.
Support for the Likud position is a stronger part of neocon identity but it's not really the same. I suspect it comes down to Israel being their best hope for old-fashioned American imperialism. Israel is a tool, not an ideal for them. Otherwise, why are they sitting on North America.
The strongest, perhaps even at times intemperate criticism of the Likud, both Israeli and American has been from Jews, and I'll use the upper case for them, they deserve it. They've got my respect and gratitude.
My guess about why many on Atrios' list are Jewish: I don't think that it has actually anything to do with being Jewish, except by accident. The beginning of the neoconservative philosophy was in a Chicago University professor whose name escapes me. He wrote also on the question of what it means to be Jewish, and it would seem natural that he would attract a larger than average number of Jewish graduate students. They would then be exposed to the neoconservative philosophy.
This is discussed in a book by a Canadian professor of political science whose name also escapes me, except I think it was a woman.
How's that for a post which is as informative as GWB's speeches? Well, I'm also a straight shooter.
Dick Cheney is absolutely a neo-con. It may not have started out as one 30 years ago, but he certainly is one now. The think-tank that Cheney is most associated with is AEI. Cheney is still pushing wacko AEI lies like Iraq attacked the WTC in 1993. Cheney is a neocon.
Rumsfeld? He picked Wolfowitz to be his number two! Nobody outside of the neocon circle respects Wolfowitz as an intellect. He consistently wrong. Remember "Iraq will be able to fund its own reconstruction" All the way back to '70's and team B he was wrong, in the '80s when Gorbachev's glasnost was suppossed to be a trick he was wrong. How did Rumsfeld let all those neocons slip into the Pentagon under his nose? How did the Office of Special Plans get set up?
I'll be even less informative. I read a good history of necons, but I can't rememeber where. One little piece stuck out, however. Perle was early on a staffer for Scoop Jackson, the vietnam era Washington senator hawk.
Maybe it was . . . "Twilight of the Neocons" . Check Billmon/Whiskey Bar blog (December 23); check the December archives.
echidne: You're referring to Leo Strauss, who was a Platonist, thus, the nonempirical style of neocons. However, most of his followers are not jewish.
The jewish thread running through the neocons is that a lot of these people were former jewish leftists, who were hard liners on the Cold War. The genocide campaign of the Nazis against the jews made them supportive of strong military stances against totalitarian regimes. They were appalled by leftist opposition to Vietnam & moved right. They're strident in their support of Israel, taking a Likudist view of the conflict, and thus their interest in toppling Sadam fits in with their Mideast views supporting Israel.
Lind was the protege of that prince of darkness, WFBuckley Jr., until Lind saw the light and came over to the side of the angels (well liberals anyway)!
When do we get to blow up the Death Star or am I in the wrong movie?
Let's think more about the neo again. Most of the official neos used to be official leftists? Does that mean that you have to be a former leftist to be a present neo?
Sort of leaves a lot of the kiddies out of the picture doesn't it. Elliot "The Pathological liar" Abrams, for example. Mommy and Daddy should have been more careful about defining it to include him, shouldn't they have?
Gertrude Himmelfarb gives the profession of professional camp follower a bad name.
KevinNYC--good points on the neocon-ness of Cheney and Rummy. You changed my mind--pretty much.
On the other hand, both of those guys are also old school Cold Warriors. So I actually see them as political animals that span the Realist and Neocon schools. Hence their utility to Bush II.
I would still say that it's kinda hard to see either of those guys, who are sunk so deep into the Military-Industrial Complex, as being "true" neocons in the philosophical sense, given it's anti-empirical (Platonist) nature.
But, hell, it's all debatable. Good bar-room argument fodder, I guess.
Maybe it's really more of a functional than an abstract catagory. Maybe a neo-con is someone who acts like a neo-con. If so, it's open to anyone.
Maybe Cheney and Rumsfeld are more properly "neo-neocons". Or maybe just "cons"-- I don't think they were ever lefties at all. But clearly, the definition of a neocon is not very precise. Carter gives a good rundown of the neocon ideology above.
OK what annoys me is this.
I have been a critic of all religious extremism, and I have been most hard on Christians and Muslims (I myself am a catholc)
However, when extremist Jews get critisized, why does the anti-semitism card get played so quickly?
They have a thinner skin than Bobby Knight.
Hence their utility to Bush II.I more think that Bunnypants was groomed to be used as thier tool.
I'm not up on hyperlinks, but the site for good discussion of neo-cons by Billmon is:
http://billmon.org/archives/2003_12.html
Dec 23rd and 24th.
I more think that Bunnypants was groomed to be used as thier tool.
Yeah, good point. Shoulda said: Hence their utility to the Bush dynasty.
All these years I've been hearing from Republicans about the danger of public policy being dictated by elitist pointyheaded inbred incestuous effete would-be-intellectuals who couldn't navigate their way out of a wet kleenex with a razor blade...
Now I understand!
Thanks to Carter et al. When the talent-free, left-brain amputee David "Babbling" Brooks went on about how being against neocon = being anti-Semitic, I had no idea what he was going on about. Now I have the beginnings of a clue.
Well, every Jew I know disagrees with the neocons. I suppose that makes them "self-hating Jews."
"when extremist Jews get critisized [sic], why does the anti-semitism card get played so quickly?"
--
Maybe it's because you find it necessary to emphasize the word "Jews" [it's the noun here] rather than the political orientation ["extremist"]. Why is it that when 2 Jews hold the same position it's viewed as a conspiracy [whether of the left or the right]? How come the religions of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et. al. haven't been brought into this discussion? And just maybe we're thin-skinned--even here out on the left flank--because we know that others find it necessary ultimately to categorize [stigmatize?] us by our ethnicity.
Normal - I certainly take your point, but, on the other hand, don't you get just a mite annoyed when the neo-con/AIPAC/extremist Jews hijack the whole show (including the U.S.Congress,) to marshal lock step adherence to Israeli policy. They certainly emphasize the Jew in Jewish (as in state) to stifle debate. A pretty handy conflation of religion and politics. As one with Jewish heritage, I resent the hell out of it.
normalvision, I really have no quarrel with your words. Antisemitism has had such an ugly and devastating effect on the Jewish people, that one has no choice but to worry about it and take it seriously. I am not Jewish, but my children are (half of full, depending on who you are talking to), so I take it very seriously.
So, being "thin skinned" (if, indeed, that's what it is) is understandable. But you still need to be honest and acknowledge that there are, in fact, many criticisms of the relationship of the rightist movement with extremist Christianity to be found here and elsewhere.
I read them here all the time, and I post a lot of them myself. I have railed against fundamentalisms of all kinds. Orthodox Jews can not and do not get a free pass. Ditto for the right-wing Israelis, secular or non.
The rightist ecosystem links the Creative Destruction Neocons, zealous West-Bank settlers, Neoconfederates, and the Apocalyptic Christians. Apocalyptic assholes, one and all. Sorry, but I don't want to be caught in their Death Dance and I will speak out.
Finally, I would suggest that you go over to Orcinus, if you haven't all ready, for some incredible reporting, and very effective discussion and criticism, of rightist Christianity. It might help restore your sense of balance.
"Most important, the neoconservative myth offers Europeans and liberals a useful euphemism for expressing their hostility to Israel."
Wow, I'm half European and liberal: My hostility is to people who insist on writing checks in my name for paranoid ideas that put my fellow citizens in the crosshairs.
Mondo,
It may be said that Cheney and Rumsfeld started out in the realist school, but they have not been part of that school for a long time. Remember the realists were against this war. Baker, Scrowcroft, Bush I, et al.
In the Reagan/Bush years Wolfowitz and Cheney were around, but were in second-tier jobs or not the true drivers of policy. That's because the serious policy heads thought they were a little nuts. Another feature of the neocons is their disrespect of the military. They prefer military thinkers to actual military officers. To them being a Defense Department intellectual counts for more than being a commander of troops.
Suck.com had a good piece about a careful reading of Gen. Schwarzkopf's biography reveals that the Pentagon official who keeps giving him crappy strategic advice is Dick Cheney. Cheney kept accusing Schwarzkopf and the Chiefs of Staff of being weak and afraid to take risks. The neocons have a fantasy of unlimited American power, but as Iraq is showing us, American power is finite and has to used wisely. They also think superior Military power allows us to ignore all other forms of soft power: diplomacy, alliances, treaties, international law, international institutions, etc.
KevinNYC, no argument from me. Great analysis.
"I certainly take your point, but, on the other hand, don't you get just a mite annoyed when the neo-con/AIPAC/extremist Jews hijack the whole show (including the U.S.Congress,) to marshal lock step adherence to Israeli policy."
---
"Hijack," "lock step"--here we go with conspiracy-theory rhetoric!
Hey, I absolutely abhor the neo-cons. But can't we focus attacks on their destructive ideas without abandoning rational thought and language?
--Aside to mondo dentro:
a)
I dig Orcinus, too!
b)
Check out the definition of "Orthodox Jews"--the neocons aren't!
Check out the definition of "Orthodox Jews"--the neocons aren't!
I know that, normalvision. I was responding to suggestion that only Jews have their religion mentioned in polical discussion. It's not true.
I would make this plea: it would be nice if, occasionally, Jews on our side would acknowledge the difficulty of criticizing people who are disingenously using charges of antisemitism to stifle dissent. I for one would welcome actual advice on how you think we should handle it. That would be more constructive than assuming bias, or focusing on the possibility of coded bias in statements critical of people who happen to be Jewish.
Another thing, there is one significant difference that needs to be acknowledged between the concepts of "Jew" and "Christian" that causes frequent semantic confusion: "Jew" refers to an ethnicity and a religion; Christian only to a religion. The confusion between the two categories is often a problem. Usually I believe it's an unintended error, but sometimes it used deliberately and deviously to manipulate people.
I suspect, FWIW, that we are not really very much in disagreement on much of this...
Hawthorn asked why neocons who are jewish play the anti-Semitism card whenever they get any criticism no matter how untrue or irrelevant the context makes it. It's because they're cowards and it has protected them from having to defend their loony positions. This is changing but they'll still keep raising it because their positions are loonier than ever and their brats, who are taking over the family business, are even less able to defend them.
normal - you say "But can't we focus attacks on their destructive ideas without abandoning rational thought and language?"
This sounds good to me. I do not consider my use of "hijack" and "lock step" to be outside the pale. I have been fairly closely watching this situation for almost 40 years and I don't need to call it a conspiracy to recognize consistent and growing behavior over time.
mondo - good points all, including one that needs consistent repetition and caution, i.e., the use, especially when manipulative, of the term "jew" to refer to both the ethnic and religious.
Thanks for the link. I printed it out and now have something to read over coffee at Waffle House tomorrow.
(I do not consider my use of "hijack" and "lock step" to be outside the pale.)
---
Of course, Don S., you don't; noone ever thinks he's wrong. You remind me of a former student who said, "If I thought it was wrong, I wouldn't have written it."
The highly emotive connotations of your terms connect with the conspiracy theories that have the Jews at the bottom of all alleged political and social evils ranging from bolshevism to globalization.
It's just a small step from "extremist Jews hijack the whole show (including the U.S.Congress)" to "the Jews have the blood of American troops on their hands."
And for the record: a)I was against the Iraqi invasion; b) I am against Israeli settlements on the West Bank.
PS: I find your reference to "outside the pale" very evocative. I'm sure that there are a few believers in the Jewish hijacking of American political life who would like to send us back there.
Not completely OT:
If you haven't visited before, I suggest visiting "they rule" for a peek at how inbred corporate America is as well.
http://www.theyrule.net/
Fareed Zakaria has a good review of the
book 'An End To Evil' also.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/0...ew/
08ZAKART.htm
A couple of paragraphs that caught my attention mentioned how you can scour the neocon literature from the 90's and find no reference to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden (Iraq, of course, was prominent)
and the mention that the most egregious example of "negotiating with murderers" happened during the Reagan 'Iran Contra' scandal when Perle was in high office...
These guys are like most of W's cabinet ... they talk the talk but they ain't never walked the walk...
Normal - My goodness, what don't you find evocative, if 'outside the pale' is a forbidden term.
I'm sorry, normal, I think I'm as sensitive to persecution of Jews as the next Jew, having lost the majority of my maternal family in the halocaust. But, I must call a spade a spade, and the virtual fusion of American politics and Israeli politics has not been totally useful to say the least.
I'm trying to be polite here but it seems like you will have no part of it. So maybe you should just write me off as a self-hating Jew and be done with it.
Oops. Looks like normalvision guessed someone's DNA wrong.
"Oops. Looks like normalvision guessed someone's DNA wrong."
Au Contraire, mondo dentro; Don S. mentioned his background long before I wrote a word here. I was aware of it, but there was no reason--on my part--to allude to it.
As you said much earlier, md, "I suspect, FWIW, that we are not really very much in disagreement on much of this..." I agree, and I suspect that when we shovel all our shit aside, Don. S. and I would be on the same side on almost all issues. I just wish that he'd watch his words.
I'm gone from this dicussion--time for hockey. Ciao.
To be politically pro-Israeli, regardless, is a no brainer for american politicians. There is no countervailing force. This says nothing about their understanding of issues, or personal thoughts and feelings. So we are living in a never-never-land totally divorced from meaningful thought and debate. It certainly makes development and execution of a rational foreign policy difficult.
This (potentially) false pro-Israel stance of most politicians is almost as dangerous,in its ignorance, as anti semitism. We all know how the worm turns in the world of politics. So I'm not too concerned about my words. No one is listening!
Ciao.
Thank you for this, A. I have often seen posters on various blogs accused of being antisemites for mentioning the existance of neoconservatives. This is my new response.
"Irving Kristol wrote a book called 'Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea.' Please explain to me how Irving Kristol is an antisemite, or STFU."
come on, really, when are families together? thanksgiving?
Incest.
play craps on line play craps on line play craps on line // insurance marketing agencies insurance marketing agencies insurance marketing agencies
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
