Press Freedom in Russia? Tune In To the Political Talk Shows and See For Yourself


horiz grey linetgplogo12313

Evgenii Popov on the set of his weekly brawling talk show “Special Correspondent”

[dropcap]I[/dropcap] remember with a shudder an exchange I had with Elmar Brok on 5 March 2015 on The Network, a debate program of Euronews. Brok, a German, is the chairman of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs. He comes from Angela Merkel’s CDU party and within the Parliament is in the European People’s Party bloc, on the center right, the bloc which really calls the shots in the EP.

Brok is big, brash and does not hesitate to throw his weight around, especially when talking with someone outside the Establishment whom he has no reason to fear.  We were discussing the shooting of Boris Nemtsov, which occurred just days before. Brok insisted the murder was the responsibility of Vladimir Putin. Not that Putin pulled the trigger, but he created the atmosphere where such things could happen, etc., etc.  One way or another the talk shifted to the allegedly autocratic nature of the Putin ‘regime,’ with its crackdown on freedoms, and in particular ever tightening control of media.

Attribution - Non Commericial - No Derivs Creative Commons© European Union 2012 - European Parliament----------------------------------------Pietro Naj-Oleari:European Parliament,Information General Directoratem,Web Communication Unit,Picture Editor.Phone: +32479721559/+32.2.28 40 633E-mail: pietro.naj-oleari@europarl.europa.eu

Authoritarian Brok: Scratch one of these guys and you will find a crypto-fascist—or worse. America cuddles these types while pretending otherwise.

At that point, I objected that the Russia media were very diverse editorially, with many different points of view expressed freely.  Brok shot back that this was patently untrue, and he did not hesitate to cross all red lines and indulge in libel on air by asking how much the Kremlin paid me to say that.

Apart from the obvious truth that an authoritarian like MEP Brok would not know freedom of speech if he tripped on it, I think back to that exchange every week whenever I turn on Russian state television and watch one or another of the main political talk shows.  These shows are very popular with Russians and draw in audiences numbering tens of millions. The longest running is by veteran presenter Vladimir Soloviev.  A competing show in this format on Pervy Kanal, the country’s flagship television station, is Special Correspondent hosted by a journalist twenty years Soloviev’s junior, Yevgeni Popov.

[dropcap]N[/dropcap]ow that I have just made my first appearance on Popov’s program on 11 May (https://russia.tv/video/show/brand_id/3957/episode_id/1299446/video_id/1… -Russian only), I can state with full confidence that my impressions as a viewer are borne out by what I experienced as a participant: respect for diversity of opinion in a marketplace of ideas.

My landing on the program was the result of one of those chance encounters that have a core of pre-determination in them. I happened to be in the European Parliament auditorium in Brussels on 26 April awaiting the screening of Andrei Nekrasov’s film on Bill Browder and the manufactured myth of Sergei Magnitsky’s murder when Yevgeni and his Russian cameraman looked around the nearly empty room to find someone to comment on the film’s last minute cancellation. They settled on me, I delivered the needed sound bite and we made contact.  

My article on the Mariinsky Symphony Orchestra concert in Palmyra on 5 May was published on Consortium News, Russia Insider, The Greanville Post, and other portals that Yevgeni’s staff monitor. So, when they had a talk show devoted to terrorism, the Islamic State and Western press reaction to the Mariinsky concert, I was identified as a welcome new face and got an email inviting me to their Moscow studio to join the ‘regulars’ on Special Correspondent.

Michael Bohm: Sticking up for the "American narrative".

Michael Bohm: An American in Moscow. Sticking up for the “Washington line”.

The regulars on these talk shows are a mix of Russians and foreigners, pro-Kremlin and anti-Kremlin voices.  There inevitably is at least one American who can be counted on to purvey the Washington Narrative. A reliable regular in this category has been Michael Bohm, who was for a long-time op-ed manager at The Moscow Times and now is said to be teaching journalism in Moscow. On the 11th Michael’s place was kept warm by another upstanding Neocon, the bureau chief of The New York Post.  Then there is an Israeli regular who delivers the Netanyahu perspective on events.  And you can be sure to see a Pole or Ukrainian who will spice up any discussion of Maidan and the regime in Kiev.

From among Russians, the talk show hosts bring in one or more representatives of opposition parties. On the 11th it happened to be a personality from the Yabloko Party (Liberals). But at other times there will be the leader of the Communist Party, Gennady Zyuganov, the founder of the right nationalist LDPR, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, or the leader of the social democratic party, Just Russia, Sergei Mironov. They all get their time on air in these shows.

For the pro-Kremlin position, in my show on the 11th we had a member of the Russian federal Security Council, a professor of television journalism from Moscow State University, a very loyal Vesti journalist and someone from a Moscow think tank.

There are those who will object that the anti-Kremlin foreigners who are invited time and again to speak out in the Russian political talk shows are selected precisely because they are so outrageous and/or appear so dim-witted that they serve the purposes of the official party line. There is a good deal of truth to this, although to rise to the level of self-caricature of Michael Bohm still takes extraordinary linguistic skills, which no doubt escapes the attention of Russian viewers.

However, the Russian opposition leaders who are invited on air are a totally different story. They are shrewd observers of the Russian political system with deep resources of insider experience and analytical skills. Here different factors are operative. Firstly, their criticism of the Kremlin today is almost exclusively on domestic policy; like the population in general, the opposition leaders who appear on state television have rallied around the flag in the face of economic warfare and information warfare deemed to be initiated by the West. Secondly, they are nearly all representatives of parties with seats in the Duma.  The so-called ‘non-systemic’ opposition who could not pass the 5% barrier of electoral support to enter the legislature receive no air time on the talk shows. 

rus-Mikhail_Kasyanov_par_Claude_Truong-Ngoc_mars_2015

M. Kasyanov

From the standpoint of the authorities, these odious personalities will not be allowed to disseminate their seditious views on state television. Let us take a few outstanding cases on the level of the party leaders mentioned above. Mikhail Kasyanov, head of the Parnas party or, more properly speaking, movement, where he shared power with Boris Nemtsov, has spent too much time paying court to the anti-Russian bloc of Guy Verhostadt in the European Parliament or visiting the Arizona home of Senator John McCain in support of anti-Russian sanctions.  Alexei Navalny effectively called for violent overthrow of the regime when he fired up the crowds on Bolotnaya Square on 5 December 2011.  It is hard to imagine any country where the authorities would hand them the microphone, least of all on prime time.

The Russians are great fans of boxing or wrestling matches without rules, where almost anything goes. And the talk shows are often a free for all, especially if there is no particularly important politician among the panelists.  In this spirit, each of us received a round of applause from the live audience as we entered the studio, like so many Roman gladiators on their way into the colosseum.

However, the presenter does keep order, and not just to ensure the breaks for advertising are respected.  In this way I was assured before we went on air that I did not have to shout down the regulars to be heard, as they often do among themselves, but would be given the mike when I indicated I wanted to jump in.

I jumped in three times during the program, at greatest length when the discussion finally turned on what I had researched and wanted to share: my take on the Western media coverage of the Mariinsky’s concert in Palmyra.  Yevgeni Popov knew very well that what I was about to say was 180 degrees at variance with what he had said about this coverage in a broadcast several days earlier.  His position was that the world at large viewed the Russian cultural mission to Palmyra with great sympathy.  My position was and is that the immediate PR return from bringing 100 foreign journalists to the concert was very meager and largely negative. To this I add that it is much too early to draw conclusions, because Western media were similarly negative initially following Valery Gergiev’s concert in South Ossetia in August 2008 at the conclusion of the Russian-Georgian war, but that within 6 months the views changed in the West completely in Gergiev’s favor.

Popov let me have my say to the end, holding the others back.  There was no question for me that his objective was to challenge his audience, not to coddle them.  How nice it would be if similar rough and tumble debates on foreign policy towards Russia and the rest of the world were allowed to appear on prime time television in the USA.

About the author
 Dr. Gilbert DoctorowG. Doctorow is the European Coordinator of The American Committee for East West Accord Ltd. His most recent book, Does Russia Have a Future? was published in August 2015. 


Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience. 

horiz-long grey




black-horizontal

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable

If you appreciate our articles, do the right thing and let us know by subscribing. It’s free and it implies no obligation to you—ever. We just want to have a way to reach our most loyal readers on important occasions when their input is necessary.  In return you get our email newsletter compiling the best of The Greanville Post several times a week.  

[email-subscribers namefield=”YES” desc=”” group=”Public”]

Screen Shot 2015-12-08 at 2.57.29 PM

Nauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to 

The Greanville Post–or
SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?

horiz-black-wide
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.




black-horizontal




Reactions to Brazil’s Coup

black-horizontalDispatches from
STEPHEN LENDMAN

stephen-lendmanVenezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, himself threatened by Washington wanting him ousted, denounced what he called a “made in the USA” coup, part of Obama’s deplorable legacy. He withdrew his ambassador in protest. In Havana on Cuban state television, a newscaster read the following statement:

“The revolutionary government of the Republic of Cuba has denounced the judicial-parliamentary coup d’etat, disguised with legality that has been underway for months in Brazil.”  


"Elections are a farce" reads the placard. The feeling that society is sick is pervasive. But it's not so much Dilma's government as the system itself.

“Elections are a farce” reads the placard. The feeling that society is sick is pervasive. But it’s not so much Dilma’s government as the system itself.

“Today a fundamental step was taken for the objectives of a coup. The majority of Brazilian senators decided to continue with the process of the political trial against the legitimately elected president of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff.”

In late December, Raul Castro said “(h)istory demonstrates that when the right takes government power, it does not hesitate to dismantle social policies, provide the rich benefits, reestablish neoliberalism, and apply shock therapies against workers, women and youths.”

El Salvador President Sanchez Ceren denounced what he called “political manipulation…We respect democracy and the people’s will,” he said. “In Brazil an act was done that was once done through military coups.” Ceren withdrew his ambassador in protest.

Ecuador, Bolivia, the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) and Organization of American States (OAS) criticized Rousseff’s removal. Former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva called for mobilizing a “broad (anti-coup) front. Obama and John Kerry remained conspicuously silent. Their fingerprints were all over what happened.

US government indecency
[dropcap]I[/dropcap]t was a repeat of previous administration coups in Honduras and Paraguay, along with installing puppet rule in Haiti and aiding fascist Mauricio Macri take over from reformer/imperial critic Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner in Argentina. Deplorable US Voice of America propaganda lied, claiming Rousseff’s impeachment was over “alleged corruption.” It has nothing to do with any wrongdoing, everything to do with power-grabbing.

Rousseff vowed to contest what happened using all legal means against what she called a “fraudulent” impeachment process. “What’s at stake is respect for the ballot box, the sovereign will of the Brazilian people and the constitution,” she explained.  Chances for reinstating her are slim. Dominant right-wing politicians intend holding on to power they lawlessly seized. 



About the author
Screen Shot 2016-02-19 at 10.13.00 AMSTEPHEN LENDMAN lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."  ( http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html ) Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.



black-horizontal

black-horizontal

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable

If you appreciate our articles, do the right thing and let us know by subscribing. It’s free and it implies no obligation to you—ever. We just want to have a way to reach our most loyal readers on important occasions when their input is necessary.  In return you get our email newsletter compiling the best of The Greanville Post several times a week.  

[email-subscribers namefield=”YES” desc=”” group=”Public”]




NYT Editors Obsessed with Getting Clinton Elected President

black-horizontalRADICAL READER’S DIGEST



Dispatches from

STEPHEN LENDMAN

stephen-lendmanShe’s recklessly pro-war, pro-business, anti-populist, a threat to world peace and stability. Her deplorable public office record shows she opposes equity, justice, rule of law principles and democratic values. Her agenda is frightening, electing her president unthinkable, a neocon war goddess, supporting endless conflicts, deploring peace, risking direct confrontation with Russia and China.  


Her finger on the nuclear trigger leaves humanity’s fate up for grabs. NYT editors support the most recklessly dangerous US presidential aspirant in modern memory while bashing Trump relentlessly.  He’s over-the-top like all duopoly power presidential aspirants, supporting the same dirty business as usual agenda. Unlike Clinton, he’d rather make money than start WW III.

While the Times digs dirt to blacken Trump’s name, the biggest unreported issue is avoiding global nuclear war. The degeneracy of the American media is becoming so obvious that even the most stupid people in the country are beginning to notice. (At last!)


The Times went to extraordinary lengths to bash his womanizing history, making “unwelcome advances,” conducting “unsettling workplace conduct over decades.” It assigned unknown numbers of reporters to locate and interview over 50 women who worked with, dated or interacted with him socially “since his adolescence” – without explaining how any of this relates to affairs of state if he’s elected president.

RFK/JFK: Undiluted imperial corporatists, and womanizers, to boot. Are you listening Oliver Stone? Liberal infatuations die hard. Still, what they did with women—consenting adults—is their business.

RFK/JFK: Undiluted imperial corporatists, and womanizers, to boot. Are you listening Oliver Stone? Liberal infatuations die hard. Still, what they did with women—consenting adults—is their business.


[dropcap]N[/dropcap]umerous past presidents had extramarital affairs, including Washington, Jefferson, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Jack Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton, among others. Little or nothing was said about their private lives while campaigning or throughout their tenure. Instead of focusing solely on issues and where candidates stand, The Times dwelled on where it had no business going. Nothing it reported suggested wrongdoing.

Countless hours spent locating and interviewing dozens of women found nothing more than a “portrait of a wealthy, well-known and provocative man and the women around him, one that defies categorization,” said The Times. “Some women found him gracious and encouraging.” Some got high-level positions in his enterprises. The Times called it “a daring move for a major real estate developer at the time.”

Who cares if he made “romantic advances.” He didn’t rape or molest anyone. “A lot of things get made up over the years,” he said. “I have always treated women with great respect. And women will tell you that.” About all The Times could conclude was saying he had power and women he came into contact with didn’t. He had and still has “celebrity…wealth (and) connections.” Some women sought his help with their careers and stuck with him.

The lengthy article isn’t worth the time or trouble to read. It reveals more about The Times’ deplorable agenda than Trump’s. Political reporting should focus solely on issues and pinning down candidates on where they stand. America’s money-controlled system features horse-race journalism. Duopoly power is ignored. So is a sham political process too debauched to fix. Whether Trump or Clinton succeeds Obama, ordinary people lose.

The biggest unreported issue is avoiding global nuclear war. [Ironically, despite the huge noise made by the establishment about what a terrible risk to the nation and the world Trump is] with Trump there’s a chance, likely little at best with Clinton.



About the author
Screen Shot 2016-02-19 at 10.13.00 AMSTEPHEN LENDMAN lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."  ( http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html ) Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.



black-horizontal

black-horizontal

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable

If you appreciate our articles, do the right thing and let us know by subscribing. It’s free and it implies no obligation to you—ever. We just want to have a way to reach our most loyal readers on important occasions when their input is necessary.  In return you get our email newsletter compiling the best of The Greanville Post several times a week.  

[email-subscribers namefield=”YES” desc=”” group=”Public”]




Putin Reacts to US-Led NATO Threat

black-horizontalDispatches from
STEPHEN LENDMAN

stephen-lendmanIn response to Washington activating its new missile defense system in Romania intended solely for offense – able to strike Russia’s heartland with nuclear-armed cruise missiles, Putin reacted, saying: “Now, after the deployment of those anti-missile system elements, we’ll be forced to think about neutralizing developing threats to Russia’s security.”  


Activating America’s missile system aimed at Russia violates arms treaties between both countries, escalating tensions and launching a new arms race.  “We’re not going to be dragged into” it, said Putin. “We’ll go our own way. We’ll work very accurately without exceeding the plans to finance the re-equipment of our Army and Navy, which have already been laid out for the next several years.”

putinThinking

Speaking to top defense and military industry officials, Putin said the system was aimed at blunting Russia’s nuclear arsenal. “This is not a defense system. This is part of U.S. nuclear strategic potential brought onto a periphery. In this case, Eastern Europe is such periphery,” Putin said.


“Recent developments indicate that the situation isn’t getting better. Unfortunately, it’s deteriorating.” Russia intends maintaining a strategic balance of power, wanting large-scale conflicts avoided.  It may withdraw from treaties with America if its lawless hostile actions continue. Eventual confrontation between both powers seems inevitable – the unthinkable possibility of nuclear war. Last November, Putin said Russia is developing strike systems able to penetrate any missile defense shield. Work on its own shield is proceeding.

The true goal of America’s system is neutralizing Russia’s nuclear capability, he explained, along with gaining a first-strike advantage.

..
The true goal of America’s system is neutralizing Russia’s nuclear capability, he explained, along with gaining a first-strike advantage. US-hyped Iranian and North Korea threats divert attention from Washington’s real intentions. For years, Russian officials expressed concerns with their US counterparts, including at the presidential level, to no avail.

Targeting Russia’s heartland with possible nuclear-armed intermediate-range cruise missiles requires an appropriate defensive response. America is no reliable partner. It’s Russia’s enemy, wanting pro-Western puppet governance replacing its sovereign independence.

… 



About the author
Screen Shot 2016-02-19 at 10.13.00 AMSTEPHEN LENDMAN lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."  ( http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html ) Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.



black-horizontal

black-horizontal

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable

If you appreciate our articles, do the right thing and let us know by subscribing. It’s free and it implies no obligation to you—ever. We just want to have a way to reach our most loyal readers on important occasions when their input is necessary.  In return you get our email newsletter compiling the best of The Greanville Post several times a week.  

[email-subscribers namefield=”YES” desc=”” group=”Public”]




Arianna Huffington as Agent for the Democratic Party

horiz-black-wideDispatches from Eric Zuesse
pale blue horiz


 At Huffington Post, Arianna Huffington is the top person, and her site is so blatantly hostile to the Republican Party as to have placed Donald Trump — that Party’s only skilled Presidential candidate in a field of over a dozen Republican Presidential candidates — into its Entertainment Section, rather than its Politics Section, when he announced for the U.S. Presidency. However, after the absurdity of that decision on her part became apparent from the political polling, Trump was quietly transferred to “Politics.” 

Arianna+Huffington+Arianna+Huffington+Huffington+5DY5fsK6Yrtl

After Trump won the nomination, HuffPo’s news-reporting — which had previously been honest about Hillary Clinton and exposed her in its news-reports as being anything but a progressive — suddenly committed itself to making her President; and, so, on Sunday 8 May 2016, HuffPo placed atop their home page a huge banner headline, “THE CLOSET PROGRESSIVE”, with a photo of Hillary Clinton immediately below it. (As Bloomberg had headlined 12 days earlier, on 26 April 2016, “Clinton’s Next Campaign Is Bringing Sanders’ Voters Into Her Coalition”, and, now, Huffington is doing what Democratic Party strategists want done. That explains her lying banner-headline on May 8th.)

Prior to Trump’s Republican victory, HuffPo had run honest reporting about Hillary, such as:

There was even an article that I had done, “Hillary Clinton Backs Fast-Track on Obama’s Trade Deals”, which exposed the duplicitousness of Clinton about those deals, by documenting that Hillary was publicly advising Democrats in Congress to follow Nancy Pelosi’s lead on that matter, when Pelosi’s lead was the exact opposite in private with her fellow-Representatives in the U.S. House, than it was in Pelosi’s public statements (which were against Obama’s trade-deals): Pelosi was saying in public that the trade-deals are bad and that Democrats should therefore vote against Fast Track, but at the same time Pelosi was doing everything possible in private with House Democrats, so as to get enough Democrats to vote for Fast Track, so that Obama would be able to get those trade-deals passed into law (as he likely will now, on his TPP, between the November 8th Election and the January 20th inauguration — and it’s NAFTA on steroids). Hillary succeeded; Pelosi succeeded; they made it possible for Obama to get his trade-deals passed into law. This was duplicity on both their parts, and Hillary Clinton’s part in this was that of anything but “THE CLOSET PROGRESSIVE” such as Arianna Huffington’s operation is now claiming that Clinton is. The May 8th lead story (reciting Clinton’s lies, as if they were instead her actual record) was published at HuffPo just for deceiving voters (especially Bernie Sanders’s voters), so as to defeat the Republican nominee. ‘News’ for deception, is not news for information. But in a dictatorship, it’s common. It’s how the aristocracy controls the public. (Remember all that ‘news’ in 2002 about “Saddam’s WMD”? The ‘news’ media haven’t changed the way they operate. Once a President is ensconced in office, it’s “rally around the flag,” which is really rally around the aristocracy. And that’s how wars, even totally unjustified invasions, get done.)

[dropcap]B[/dropcap]ack on 16 August 2013, my article-submission exposing Hillary was accepted by HuffPo’s editors, titled “Hillary Clinton’s Two Foreign-Policy Catastrophes”, but, when I subsequently submitted a HuffPo exclusive report, in February 2016, updating that article, now much closer to the actual election, “Hillary Clinton’s Six Foreign-Policy Catastrophes”, it was rejected, and so I sent it out then for general distribution to all news-media. But, even as a general-distribution article, HuffPo now wouldn’t publish such a devastating exposé of former Secretary of State Clinton’s combined demonstrated-there evil and incompetence — both of which make undeniably clear that she’s actually the exact opposite of a “progressive,” far less “THE CLOSET PROGRESSIVE”.

Arianna-Huffington
Consequently, it’s one thing to expose a Democratic Party politician as a conservative or a corrupt operator when it’s being done in an off-year; but, as soon as the two Parties have virtually settled upon whom their respective nominees are going to be, the rally-round-the-flag operation at Huffington Post isn’t really a rally around the American flag; it’s instead a rally around the Democratic Party flag-bearer, no matter how disgusting.

Does this differ, in principle, from Fox News, on the Republican side?

The end-result is that the U.S. Establishment, or it might be called the “aristocracy,” or this nation’s “oligarchy”, controls both of the two political Parties, and thus wins, no matter what the nominal “Party” happens to be. And, an “aristocracy” or “oligarchy” is the exact opposite of a democracy; it’s a dictatorship.

Something’s profoundly wrong with the American press — of all sorts. All of it is owned by, and funded by advertisements in and donations from, the U.S. billionaires and centi-millionaires, the people who make the real decisions that control this country.

Arianna Huffington is cited here as merely one, and a very typical, example of this pervasive rot in the U.S. ‘news’ media. It applies throughout both the Democratic and the Republican Parties. Nothing personal is intended here: this rot is pervasive — it is systemic, not merely personal.

And, so, I am now sending this article about it, out for general distribution, to all of them. I don’t expect to find it published in many places. (Just google the phrase — in quotes, of course — “Arianna Huffington as Agent for the Democratic Party”, to find out where it was published.)



About the author

EricZuesseThey're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.



black-horizontal

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable

If you appreciate our articles, do the right thing and let us know by subscribing. It’s free and it implies no obligation to you—ever. We just want to have a way to reach our most loyal readers on important occasions when their input is necessary.  In return you get our email newsletter compiling the best of The Greanville Post several times a week.  

[email-subscribers namefield=”YES” desc=”” group=”Public”]