House GOP targets the U.N.

House GOP
targets the U.N.

By: Tim Mak
August 30, 2011 06:08
House Republicans are planning to introduce legislation Tuesday that will
force major changes at the United Nations, an organization that the bill’s author has
called a “stew of corruption, mismanagement and negligence.”

The bill, by Republican House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, would require the UN adopt a voluntary
budget model, in which countries selectively choose which UN agencies to

The bill is expected to be introduced on Tuesday, and will also end funding
for Palestinian refugees and limit the use of U.S. funds only to projects
directly outlined by Congress.

An aide familiar with the legislation told
Bloomberg News
that shifting the UN budget to a voluntary system would
encourage competition for funds and better performance from UN agencies.

Ros-Lehtinen’s leverage for change at the U.N. is the large amount of the
international body’s budget that the American taxpayer has traditionally been
responsible for. The United States pays 22 percent of the UN’s regular
operations budget, and is assessed 27 percent of the peacekeeping budget. U.S.
payments totaled $3.35 billion in 2010, of which $2.67 billion was spent on
peacekeeping operations worldwide.

This Republican vision on foreign affairs stands in stark contrast to that of
President Obama’s, which has focused recently on multilateralism and
international consensus.

But Republicans are not the only ones concerned about growing spending at the
United Nations. Speaking on behalf of the United States, senior U.S. diplomat
Joseph Torsella recently objected to a nearly 3 percent cost of living raise to
the approximately 5,000 UN employees in New York City, saying that “a raise is
inappropriate this time of global fiscal austerity, when member state
governments everywhere are implementing drastic austerity


Defund the United Nations

Defund the United Nations

December 22nd, 2010

Neil Stevens,

The United States of America keeps the United Nations afloat. In 2009 we were assessed 22% of the budget of the UN, and paid out slightly under 24% of what was collected, thanks to the Tax Equalization Fund system. So in practice we paid about a quarter of the UN budget. Without us, the UN has to do some serious belt tightening.

So if we’re going to keep alive the UN as we know it, spending $598,292,101 in a direct assessment and surely more in other expenses, we’d best make sure we’re getting our money’s worth. The Obama deficit has gone through the roof and we simply cannot afford frivolous luxuries anymore. If the UN is not achieving its mission, it’s time we stopped paying for it.

This month I believe the UN has finally crossed the threshold of uselessness, and it’s time we defund it….

Read more.

Enough Already — Just Move the UN to Iran

Enough Already — Just Move the UN to Iran

The UN’s Economic and Social Council has just elected Iran to a seat on the UN’s women’s rights commission. Wouldn’t it be easier to just ship the entire UN, lock, stock and seating arrangements, to Iran?

The Cuckoo’s Nest visits Copenhagen

The Cuckoo’s Nest visits Copenhagen

By Mark W. Hendrickson

One of my all-time favorite novels is Ken Kesey’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, later made into an Oscar-winning film.  Set in an institution for psychological patients, Cuckoo’s Nest was a cautionary tale about all institutions-schools, churches, businesses, government bureaucracies, etc., it dramatized the horrors of what can happen when those in charge hijack an institution and place their own ambitions and lust for power, prestige, and control above the welfare of the very people whom the institution was created to help. 
The United Nations fits the cuckoo’s nest paradigm perfectly.  It is ostensibly dedicated to some of mankind’s loftiest ideals.  The U.N. Declaration of Human Rights affirms: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.” “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest.” “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.” “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion,” etc. 
In practice, though, the U.N. welcomes, legitimizes, and empowers regimes that systematically trample those rights.  U.N. officials readily betray the welfare and liberty of billions of individuals in their pursuit of world government.  With cynical irony, the UN extends the voting privilege to regimes that would never permit an honest, democratic vote in their own countries.  Also, because the major obstacle to global government is a strong, sovereign United States, U.N. delegates from illiberal regimes routinely gang up to vote against our interests.
Why would any American want to strengthen the UN?  Some individuals crave the unprecedented powers that a worldwide government would have.  Others pathologically hate liberal democracy, free markets, and limits on government power, and so despise American sovereignty.  Most pro-U.N. Americans, to give them the benefit of the doubt, are idealists who believe that the way to establish peace on earth is to do away with nation-states.  No nation-states, no wars, right?  Not so.
It amazes me that the same people who loathe private-sector business monopolies believe that a global monopoly of governmental power would be benign. When Stalin consolidated hegemony over the 15 republics that constituted the Soviet Union, there was no more war in the conventional sense, but the Soviet Union remained an exceedingly violent place.  The government warred against its own people, but the disarmed populace couldn’t fight back.  The death toll was enormous.
Those who believe that a one-world government would produce peace on earth should google “R. J. Rummel and democide.”  They will learn that wars have killed far fewer people than have strong governments.  Competition in business serves consumer welfare far better than monopoly, and so does political competition.  The 20th century featured lab-like experiments proving this: East and West Germany, North and South Korea, China vs. Taiwan and Hong Kong, east of the Iron Curtain and west of it – in all cases people voted with their feet to leave countries where there was a deadly monopoly of political power to live where politicians competed for the citizens’ approval.
This week the UN is pursuing all 3 of its nefarious goals trashing the rights of individuals, pushing for global governance, and knocking the U.S. down a few pegs-at the “climate change” meeting in Copenhagen.
UN Goal #1: The highest estimate of the estimated costs of a global cap & trade regime that I have seen was not from a global-warming skeptic, but the U.N.’s own figure of $552 trillion during the 21st century.  Since global GDP today is around $65 trillion, the UN is talking about sacrificing nearly a decade’s worth of wealth in the name of combating climate change.  Since the most lethal environment for humans is poverty, the U.N.’s call to reduce wealth by that unfathomable amount would cause tens of millions of unnecessary deaths — a gargantuan genocide or democide — and the violation of the most fundamental human right of all, life.
UN Goal #2: Preliminary language composed in advance of the Copenhagen confab calls for creation of a new UN body, “the Conference of the Parties (COP).” COP needs sweeping powers, because “the way society is structured will need to change fundamentally.”  Such “change” won’t be cheap, so the UN seeks a “massive scaling up of financial resources” to fund COP. 
Surprise! The UN wants to levy taxes!  This is huge, because if the U.N. ever gains the power to tax sovereign nations, national sovereignty will be in mortal jeopardy, and the era of one-world government will draw near.
UN Goal #3: The climate change claque seeks to penalize rich countries — especially the US — for our prosperity.  According to Friends of the Earth, “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.”  President Obama emphatically believes this.  He wants to redistribute American wealth abroad.  He doesn’t understand that rich countries became rich by embracing the principles of private property and free enterprise, while poor countries shunned that same road to prosperity.  The U.S. didn’t get rich by taking wealth from poor countries, and what poor countries need to prosper is not transfers of US wealth, but to adopt the right values and policies.
Thankfully, it doesn’t appear that the Copenhagen meeting will produce a CO2 emissions control agreement against a backdrop of global cooling, the climategate scandal, and economic weakness.  Nevertheless, what the U.N. insiders and Obama are plotting there is monstrous.  This week, the cuckoo’s nest is in Copenhagen. 
Mark Hendrickson, Ph.D. teaches economics at Grove City College and is Fellow for Economic and Social Policy with the College’s Center for Vision & Values.

Page Printed from: at December 07, 2009 – 12:01:58 PM EST

UN Climate Reports: They Lie

UN Climate Reports: They Lie

Article with charts

By Marc Sheppard
For years, claims that UN climate reports represent the consensus of the majority of international scientists have been mindlessly accepted and regurgitated by left-leaning policy makers and the media at large.  But in the past week or so, it’s become more apparent than ever that those who’ve accused the international organization of politicizing science and manipulating data have been right all along.

This latest disclosure again concerns what has become the favorite propaganda propagation tool of climate activists — the infamous “Hockey Stick Graph.” The familiar reconstruction, which deceitfully depicts last millennium’s global temperatures as flat prior to a dramatic upturn last century, has been displayed and touted ad nauseum as irrefutable proof of unprecedented and, therefore, anthropogenic, global warming (AGW). 
Despite its previous debunking, the embattled AGW poster-child continues to languish in UN climate reports, which are unduly revered and quoted as gospel by all manner of proselytizers.  In fact, just last week it had the bad timing to show up in a desperate UN compendium, released just days before Climate Audit published facts that promise to be the Hockey Stick’s (HS) long overdue epitaph.  And those facts not only assuage any doubt of the chart’s fraudulence, but also of the deliberate and devious complicity of its creators, defenders and leading UN sponsors.
But before delving into the sordid details, perhaps a little background is in order.
The Real Inconvenient Truth

Prior to the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR), the accepted depiction of the prior millennium’s warmth was that published in the panel’s 1990 maiden assessment. Specifically — global temperatures had fluctuated drastically over the period. This schematic, taken from IPCC 1990 Figure 7c, clearly demonstrates the IPCC “consensus” of the time:

And data derived from sources including tree-rings, lake sediments, ice cores and historic documents bear that position out.  Indeed, it’s abundantly evident that since the last glacial period ended, over 14,000 years ago, the Earth’s climate has undergone multi-century swings from warming to cooling that occur often and with remarkable rapidity.  And not one but three such radical shifts occurred within the past millennium.
The years 900-1300 AD have been labeled the Medieval Warming Period (MWP), as global temperatures rose precipitously from the bitter cold of the previous epoch — the Dark Ages — to levels several degrees warmer than today.  A sudden period of cooling then followed and lasted until the year 1850.  This Little Ice Age (LIA) brought on extremely cold temperatures, corresponding with three periods of protracted solar inactivity, the lowest temperatures coinciding with the quietest of the three (The Maunder Minimum 1645-1710).

And then began the modern warming period, which, by the way, many scientists believe ended with the millennium itself.
Given these natural shifts over the past 1000 years, it’s certainly not surprising that after a period of cooling, which followed a period of warming, we’d again enter a period of warming. 
And that, of course, presented quite the quandary to opportunists hell-bent on blaming warming on industrial revolution-triggered atmospheric CO2 increases. Something had to be done to convince the world that modern warming was unprecedented and could therefore only be explained by something unnatural, specifically — the “Greenhouse Effect.”
And something was. 
The End of a Warming Era

During testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Hearing on Climate Change and the Media in 2006, University of Oklahoma geophysicist Dr. David Deming recalled “an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change” who told him that “we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”  In June of this year, piece, Deming identified the year of that email as 1995 and the source only as a lead author of that month’s Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States report. 
Many believe that man to be Jonathan Overpeck – which Prof. Deming didn’t deny in an email response — who would later also serve as an IPCC lead author.  So it comes as no surprise that this reconstruction, which did indeed “get rid of the Medieval Warm Period,” was featured prominently in the subsequent 2001 TAR, particularly in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM), the highly-politicized synopsis which commands the bulk of media and political attention.

This, the original and by far most ubiquitous version of the HS graph, was derived from a 1998 paper by Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes (MBH98).  It was promptly met with challenges to both its proxy data and statistical analysis methodology.  Of these, various papers by two Canadians — statistician Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick — stood out in dispelling the AGW-supporting hockey-stick shape arrived at by MBH, claiming it the result of severe data defects and flawed calculations, particularly an invalid principal component analysis.
In a coordinated effort to defend the refuted thesis, alarmed alarmists tendered a handful of supporting studies.  Mann himself cheered those either attacking McIntyre and McKitrick or supporting his own reconstruction and dubbed them the “Hockey Team.”  And the position of team forward and co-captain was bestowed upon Keith Briffa of Britain’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), whose temperature graphs, derived from Yamal, Russia tree ring data were heavily cited by the IPCC as supporting evidence of MBH’s assertion of unprecedented 20th century warming. 
While studies reaffirming both the MWP and LIA continued to be published, congressional hearings and expert panels found MBH to be largely unsupported by studies relying on legitimate proxy data other than Briffa’s.   Still, most alarmists continued (and continue) to defend the HS on principle. 
Which in no way dilutes this plain truth:  By the time most Americans received their first lesson in climate hysteria in the Albert Gore lecture hall that was the 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth, the MBH chart the nutty professor stood before and offered as proof of impending doom was already held in disrepute by most serious persons of science.
Lest there be any doubt, why else would the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) — notwithstanding the appointments of both Briffa and Overpeck as lead authors – give the graph short mention and exclude it entirely from the SPM?
It appeared the Hockey Team was being sent back to the minors. 

That is — for the moment.
Desperate Times Call For Disparate Actions

Given the current economic and political climate, it’s not surprising that the globe’s climate ranks dead last when Americans are asked to name the “most important issue facing the country right now.”   Needless to say, that’s an uncomfortable position for the Greenhouse Gas Team, what with a Senate Climate Bill promising even more government control than its House counterpart at the plate and the December Copenhagen Climate Summit on deck.
Accordingly, on September 24th, in a transparently desperate effort to stoke the coals, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) released its Climate Change Science Compendium 2009.  The eco-plea opens with these words from UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon:

“The science has become more irrevocable than ever: Climate change is happening. The evidence is all around us. And unless we act, we will see catastrophic consequences including rising sea-levels, droughts and famine, and the loss of up to a third of the world’s plant and animal species.”

Amazing.  But the frantic hype of this call-to-pointless-action quickly segues to blatant lies just three sentences later when Ban states “that climate change is accelerating at a much faster pace than was previously thought by scientists.”  It would appear the Sec-Gen believes that the cooling temperatures the new millennium issued in have somehow escaped everyone’s notice. 
Imagine the uphill battle he’ll face should predictions of the U.S. Northeast suffering its coldest winter in a decade due to a weak El Nino come true. 
So it wasn’t all that shocking to spot this undeniably dramatic graph on only the fifth of this end-is-near report’s 75 pages. 
The striking chart is marked as Figure 1.3: Correlation between temperature and CO2.  As its title suggests, it attempts to plot atmospheric CO2 concentrations and mean global temperature during the past millennium.  Notice anything vaguely familiar about the temperature plot in red?

Why, it’s our old friend, Mr. Hockey Stick – apparently having sat for a bit of a makeover.

Interestingly enough, this reconstruction wasn’t lifted from prior IPCC assessments, or, for that matter, any UN entity at all.  No, the source was actually a graphic posted to Wikimedia in 2005 by Hanno Sandvik, a Norwegian research biologist.  Sandvik cited two data sources for his temperature plot – a 2004 paper by Jones and Mann (abracadabra – no more MWP) for 1000-1880, and, for the remainder, “instrumental records published on the web” by Jones, Parker, Osborn and – wait for it …… Briffa.
So the chart the UN climate experts used to sell the CO2 -°C connection to an increasingly skeptical public was pulled from Wiki, crafted by an unknown biologist, conveniently ends about the same year warming ended, and based on a debunked temperature reconstruction. 
It would therefore appear they consider Sanvik quite the unsung authority. Yet I wonder whether these geniuses are aware of this 2006 graphic, also from Sandvik, and plotting northern hemisphere temperatures over the past 2000 years.  This one cites 2005 data published by Moberg, Sonechkin, Holmgren, Datsenko, Karlén, and Lauritzen as its source and paints a somewhat different picture.  Hello MWP and LIA, where’ve you been?


Any guesses whether or not UNEP would have used Sandvik’s chart had his temperature dataset been from Moberg et al. rather than Mann et al.? 
I contacted Hanno Sandvik a week ago last Saturday and asked him essentially that same question.  He responded that he was unaware of the UNEP Compendium and therefore had “no idea which graphics they may have chosen.”  He also pointed out that while Mann’s was global data, Mobergs was northern hemisphere only — a point well taken,  however MHB98 was also derived from NH data yet remarkably resembles the Mann “global” data Sandvik used.
Also — Take a look at the period between 1000 and 1800 in both reconstructions. Is it even the least bit feasible that averaging southern hemisphere data into the latter would produce the former?
Or that UNEP strived to present the facts honestly?
Not Man Made — Mann Made

One of McIntyre’s chief complaints when auditing MHB98 was Mann’s refusal to provide his data, methods and source code.  The Hockey Team’s most dreaded opposing goaltender has been reporting the same deceptiveness from Briffa, who for years refused to release his Yamal measurement data.    This, despite the fact that HS-defending papers relying solely on Yamal continued to be published in major science journals.
But last year, Briffa used the data in a paper he published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Journal. As the journal adheres to its strict data archiving rules, McIntyre convinced one of its editors to help get Briffa’s data released.  And late last month, the data was indeed published at CRU.
Last week, McIntyre analyzed the CRU archive Yamal data and proved that Briffa et al. had cherry-picked and manipulated data, intentionally omitting records not friendly to their position.  In fact, when Briffa’s hand-selected figures were replaced by a broader dataset for the same Polar Ural region (much of which he had deliberately dropped), the Hockey-Stick suddenly disappeared, revealing no significant trend in the 20th century whatsoever! 
In Steve’s new graph, below, the Red represents the original 12 cherry picked Yamal trees, while the Black incorporates the broader Yamal dataset.

Any questions whether or not global warming is Mann made?
Inhofe was right

The public’s belief in manmade climate change doesn’t hang on its grasp of geophysics or thermodynamics.  Technical explanations of positive feedbacks and radiative forcings, read by few and understand by fewer still, aren’t likely to foster acceptance of a new energy tax that will dramatically raise the price of literally every facet of human life.  Let’s get real — even experts on the subject can’t seem to agree on what caused modern warming.
But alarmists know all too well that as long as citizens are convinced that warming is both enduring and unprecedented, such inconveniences as the missing hot spot,  laughably  mistaken climate models, 800 year CO2 /Temperature latency and perhaps even current cooling can be cleverly obfuscated with Goebbels-like double-talk and outright lies. 

And without the Hockey Stick’s counterfeit portrait of runaway 20th century warming, climate crisis peddlers’ credibility levels are reduced to those of used car salesmen.  Not where you want to be when hoping to sell the instinctively absurd premise that the actions of mankind can influence temperatures in either direction.
So they cheat. And they lie. And they have from the very beginning.
In 1989, climate scientist Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine:

“To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.”

Twelve years later, Schneider was a lead author of the IPCC’s TAR, the same UN report that formally introduced the delusory Hockey Stick Graph.
In his masterpiece work, Heaven and Earth, Ian Plimer assessed the cadre whose own assessments form the foundation of virtually every climate-related scheme, law, tax, regulation and treaty throughout the globe thusly:

“The IPCC is clearly an ascientific political organization in which environmental activists and government representatives are setting the agenda for a variety of reasons including boosting trade, encouraging protectionism, adding costs to competitors and pushing their own sovereign barrow.”  

Add lying perpetrators of fraud, and I’d say that about sums it up.
Speaking on the Senate floor in July of 2003, Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla) rightly called the threat of catastrophic global warming the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”
Let’s make damned sure it doesn’t become the most expensive.
Page Printed from: at October 05, 2009 – 09:40:19 AM EDT


By: Jacob Laksin
Thursday, September 24, 2009


Obama reaffirms stale hopes for a failed institution.

“I am not naïve,” President Obama insisted yesterday, as he delivered his first speech to the United Nations General Assembly. And, indeed, some components of his remarks – including his call for sterner action to halt Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programs – were reasonable enough. But nothing more corroded the seriousness of the president’s appeal for a new era of global security and cooperation than the fact that it was addressed to a body that, whatever the high-minded principles of its founding, has long been an obstacle to both.


It is an insight into the animating convictions of the modern UN that one of the more applauded parts of the president’s speech was a backhanded condemnation of his predecessor. Obama announced that his administration had rejected the supposed unilateralism of the Bush era in favor of a new “engagement.” In a disparaging reference to the Bush administration’s decision to withhold some payments to the UN, Obama boasted, “We have paid our bills.”


The boast was hardly warranted. Contrary to Obama’s implication – and much to the dismay of the UN’s critics – the United States has been the largest financial contributor to the UN since its 1945 founding. It is true that the Bush administration canceled aid for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFP), but it did so to protest the UNFP’s support for population control programs, most notably China’s program of forced abortions. Precisely why restoring U.S. funding for such controversial initiatives should be considered a sign of progress, Obama never made clear.


Obama’s rebuff of unilateralism was similarly misplaced. After all, the Bush administration’s most “unilateral” decision – the 2003 invasion of Iraq – was in fact anything but, coming as it did after the United Nations failed to enforce 17 resolutions that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had violated. Bush’s real sin, in this sense, was to make it all too plain just how ineffectual the world’s premier human rights body really was.


In fairness, Obama seemed to grasp this critique of the UN. He made a point of stressing that rogue states like Iran and North Korea “must be held accountable,” urging the world to “stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise.” Yet Obama missed an opportunity to emphasize that his promise of accountability was more than empty rhetoric. Instead, he fell back on the familiar chestnut that he is “committed to diplomacy.” An impassive Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, sitting in the fifth row, was visibly unimpressed.


And no wonder. Since 2006, the U.N. Security Council has three times imposed sanctions on Iran for its failure to freeze uranium enrichment. How has that worked out? According to the UN’s own International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran now has the knowhow to “design and produce a workable” nuclear weapon made up of enriched uranium. It’s still possible, as some experts counsel, that a new round of stiffer sanctions could stall Iran’s drive toward nuclear capability, but the recent record underscores one point: Diplomacy isn’t getting it done.

That’s particularly the case when the diplomacy is carried out by an organization whose commitment to international peace leaves so much to be desired. One need look no further than the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Less despicable than its predecessor, the singularly sinister UN Human Rights Commission, which counted such human rights beacons as Libya and Sudan in its ranks (Libya, notoriously, even chaired the commission in 2003), the UNHRC can be considered an improvement only by the UN’s dismal standards. Saudi Arabia and Cuba are still members, and the agency has retained its tradition of singling out Israel for false and inflammatory censure bordering on anti-Semitism. All the more bizarre, then, that Obama used his UN speech to announce that the United States, as part of his re-engagement strategy, was joining the UNHRC.

Such illogical pronouncements had the effect of muddling Obama’s more sober-minded observations. Although the president was unbecomingly partisan and needlessly apologetic about America’s role in the world – a pronounced tendency in his speeches at home and abroad – he did not spare the UN from criticism. He denounced the “almost reflexive anti-Americanism which, too often, has served as an excuse for collective inaction,” an apt enough description of the UN’s perennial failures. Elsewhere, he chided that “it is easy to walk up to this podium and point fingers and stoke divisions,” pointing out that, “Anybody can do that.”


On the last point, unfortunately, the president was all too correct. Thus, Obama was followed at the podium by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Libya’s Moammar Qadaffi. Ahmadinejad, having recently reaffirmed his denial of the Holocaust, proceeded to launch a routine diatribe against Israel. Qadaffi, for his part, took the occasion to offer a characteristically lunatic rant whose highlights included a demand that George Bush and Tony Blair be put on trial for the Iraq war and an assurance that swine flu was a biological weapon created in a military lab. All that was left was to conjecture about JFK’s true killer, and Qaddafi obliged. When he ripped up a copy of the UN charter at the podium, it was almost gratuitous: The mere fact that someone like Qadaffi could be invited to address the UN was a measure of how far it had fallen from its ideal.


Obama successfully avoided an embarrassing photo op with Qadaffi, but his enthusiastic support for an organization that welcomes the likes of the Libyan dictator nonetheless spoke volumes. Never mind that the UN has repeatedly failed to prevent human rights abuses. Never mind that it has empowered regimes that kill, torture, and oppress their populations with impunity. Despite this history, Obama still seems to believe that the UN remains a force for good in the world. There’s a word to describe people who hold such astoundingly credulous beliefs. And the president is not going to like it.

Jacob Laksin is managing editor of Front Page Magazine. His email is jlaksin -at-

U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo Tells United Nations To Get Out


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers