Trevor Loudon Lunch followup


As you can see from the picture above, it was a full house. We actually had to bring in extra tables from  the main section of the restaurant.

Trevor Loudon was our guest speaker.  He did a great job of delivering his message of danger and hope.

Danger in that the forces of totalitarianism – while small in number – were extremely powerful, coordinate, and dedicated to far more than the next election.

Hope in that lots of people seem to be waking up to the dangers of Big Government.

Did I think his message of the conspiracy of the Left was a bit a bit overstated: yes.  My disagreement is in degree but not in substance.  The Left self-organizes as libertarians also do.  It’s just that they seem to be better able to take the levers of government than we are.  They want power and we don’t want them to have it.  We act in almost pure altruism.  They consider themselves altruistic (“I’m forcing other people to be as good as I am.”) but, of course, their altruism involves the power of coercion.

Simply, they are more motivated than we are as any casual understanding of Public Choice Theory makes clear:

Second, public and private choice processes differ, not because the motivations of actors are different, but because of stark differences in the incentives and constraints that channel the pursuit of self-interest in the two settings.

Basically, each individual libertarian has little to gain from squelching the Left’s grab for power.  Each Leftist who takes control has a huge amount to gain, for instance, as much as 1/6 of our national economy in the case of ObamaCare.

And, yet, we’re mad as hell and if enough of us are then the political center shifts towards libertarian ideals.

Trevor Loudon also pushed on the idea that libertarian isolationism would eventually lead to the destruction of the United States.  In this I stand apart from most libertarians and agree with him.  As far as I am concerned it’s a matter of freedom of contracts and breach of contracts.

If my friend and I have been having a mutually profitable endeavor, there is nothing wrong with me making an additional contract with her that says “If you are attacked I will defend you.  In fact let’s tell all our associates that that is what we will do.”

In such a world, violence is decreased because the cost of violence increases.

I believe this contract can and should extend to nations as well.

We briefly discussed the “Treaty of Budapest” (It’s not really a treaty but a set of memorandums.)  ( ) .

The U.S. agreed to:
2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and
the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use
of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and
that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence
or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;

That sure looks like a breach of contract to me by the Russian federation to which we have a moral and legal obligation to respond with the use of force.

It was a great lunch.

Ralph Shnelvar
Chair, Libertarian Party of Boulder County

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Libertarianism and Democracy

House Bill 1164 passed the Senate Monday on a party line vote, 18-17.

This is a bill having to do with district elections not overseen by county clerks. If passed, this bill would gut citizen oversight of district elections.

Democrats support this bill. Republicans do not.

Venture capitalists often ask an entrepreneur, “What is your permanent competitive advantage?” Answers include geography, patents, and special talents unavailable elsewhere.

In politics, a permanent competitive advantage can come from many sources. A relatively benign example is the granting by the state of a copyright. From a libertarian view “economic rent seeking”, that is, the use of government to give certain people economic advantages over others by passing laws is a bad bad thing.

Other advantages might be to restrict certain voters from voting. Not permitting women to vote granted men a political and cultural advantage.

Another not-so-benign advantage is the ability to shut out poll watchers from elections. “It’s not how people voted that count but who counts the votes that matters,” is and accurate and oft-repeated sentiment. Any political entity that can decide elections will have a permanent political advantage. That is why the deeply flawed House Bill 1164 is so contentious: It’s about institutionalizing a permanent political advantage.

At this week’s lunch I’d like to delve into the theory of who should get the voting franchise. I’d also like to discuss if and when the use of violence is justified if a political institution makes it such that voting is massively unfair.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Municipalization v. Xcel: The false choice

This is a formatted version of the guest opinion printed on 10/06/2013

Do you want technology that continually gets much greener rather than becomes obsolete?

The municipalization controversy is framed as Boulder v. Xcel. Neither of these options is particularly green. The best option, an option not presented, is to let the consumer choose the provider of power.

From Inside Climate News (German Law Gave Ordinary Citizens a Stake in Switch to Clean Energy):

Centralized power generation is such an entrenched part of the U.S. electrical system that most Americans just assume that the only way to get power is from a few large generating plants, usually owned by corporate utilities operating as monopolies.

Not in Germany. Decentralizing electricity was at the core … . If utilities had remained in control of electrical generation, renewable power would still be a novelty.

Seventeen  U.S. states have power choice. In Connecticut more than 25% of retail customers have choice. Two million Pennsylvanians have selected electric suppliers.

Monopolies – whether government regulated or government owned –  are inefficient because they have no competition: they lock themselves into a particular technology and use the law to lock out new competitors and technology. In order for consumers to have choice, these entrenched monopolies must be broken up. Substituting one monopoly (Xcel) with a government monopoly (Boulder) will make it that much harder to implement individual power choice. Once the sources of electricity are competitive, consumers can choose which ones they like and wish to pay for, and those with outdated forms that no one wants will bear the loss, not the ratepayers or taxpayers.

Indeed, Boulder would become an electrical power aggregator. It would select the power sources for its citizens rather than letting the citizens choose. This would be like letting Boulder decide which restaurants everyone in Boulder gets to eat at.

Instead of further entrenching political and economic power in monopolies, consider what Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Energy, Federico Peña, wrote:

Colorado can fully benefit from the technological revolution that is transforming the way we use electricity, much like the information technology that has bettered our lives with computers and smart phones. But lawmakers and regulators must first re-evaluate our stodgy electric industry.

Imagine that the year is 1988 and that the city of Boulder was considering the purchase of the city’s telephone grid. The entirely mythical argument for the purchase was compelling: the city was not profit-driven and thus could provide the same service at lower cost. Indeed, the engineers at CU asserted that they could deliver 9600 bits per second of computer data compared to the then-prevalent 4800. The citizens voted to pay $100,000,000 ($1,000 per person) for the infrastructure.

What was not envisioned back in 1988 was that it would be commonplace in 2013 for everyone to have a mobile telephone in their pocket capable of transmitting and receiving data at a rate 1,000 times faster than in 1988 allowing us to do Google searches and view videos. The 1988 telephone infrastructure has become nearly worthless. Today 29% of households in the U.S. don’t even have a land line anymore, down from 96% 15 years ago.  Boulder may take on hundreds of millions of dollars of debt to buy infrastructure that may be as outdated as buried telephone lines.

Assume for a moment that power generated from solar panels drops much further in price so that homeowner-produced electricity becomes plentiful and cheap. Does the Gentle Reader think that the City will welcome lots of common folk generating local power? What about all those Boulder rebates and grants? Someone will have to pay off all those hundreds of millions of dollars in debt.

I’m an optimist. I believe that breakthroughs will come in local generation of power just as there was an unexpected breakthrough in natural gas extraction.

The voters should push our lawmakers to let the market participants take the risks, for more choice and not less, and not stick the voters with an antiquated system that will cost them and their children dearly. A statewide citizen’s initiative could easily break these monopolies and give the consumers the ability to choose as much in the way of renewables as the citizens want. Since we all breath the same air, my guess is that citizens would want a lot of renewables thus further driving down the costs.

For the well-being of our environment and our wallets, let the markets work their wonders to be really green.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Environmentally friendly? Pick plastic

John Cardie read my recent guest opinion in the daily Camera. On June 2, 2007 he wrote a guest opinion in the Rocky Mountain News. He sent me that article and I am “reprinting it” here.

As you read this ask yourself, why did the City Council choose to tax plastic bags at the same rate as plastic? Ask yourself why the Council simply did not make single use bags illegal in in the city of Boulder without collecting a tax at all.

Environmentally friendly? Pick plastic

When the grocery store bagger asked the young lady in front of me if she wanted plastic or paper, she said, “I wants to be environmentally friendly, so I choose paper!”

When the bagger asked me the same question (because baggers can’t be choosers) I said, “I want to be environmentally friendly, so I choose plastic!

Who’s right? First of all, it’s true that plastic doesn’t biodegrade as easily in a landfill as does paper. But this is only looking at one aspect of pollution and not the whole picture. A product’s “pollution profile” must be considered from “cradle to grave,” not just its end.
Plastic bags take 40 percent less energy to make than paper ones and produce 70 percent fewer atmospheric emissions.

Paper bag production kills trees, contributes to harmful acid rain, releases deadly dioxin and pollutes large volumes of water. Plastic bag production pollutes our waterways a whopping 94 percent less than the production of paper ones.

On a pound-for-pound basis, it takes more than 50 times more energy to “recycle” paper than it does plastic.

Note that that’s not double or triple the wasted energy, but 5,000 percent more.
While it’s true, as I’ve noted above, that plastic doesn’t biodegrade as quickly as paper, 35-year-old newspapers that could still be read have been dug out of landfills. Paper bags take up more than seven times the space in landfills compared to plastic ones.

From a “consumer convenience” standpoint, it’s a lot easier to carry five plastic bags full of groceries to the car than five paper ones. Try also keeping your things dry in a canoe with paper bags vs. plastic, or picking up your dog’s droppings in the park using an absorbent paper bag – yuck!

Finally consider the fact that it takes seven trucks carrying paper bags to equal just one truck carrying the same number of plastic ones. Therefore, their transport to the grocery store or city dump wastes seven times the fuel (making prices rise) and creates seven times the “toxic exhaust” these extra trucks belch out. These additional trucks increase traffic jams, accidents and speed the destruction of our roadways.

So,looking at the total “pollution profile” and not just the “landfill life,” the next time a bagger asks, “Paper or plastic?” we should all answer, “I want to be environmentally friendly, so I choose plastic!”

John P. Cordie is a retired environmental consultant w with more than 30 years’ experience in the field. He is a resident of Westminster.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Save the planet; use a plastic bag

Sometimes an idea seems so right but is so wrong.

What could possibly be wrong with growing corn for ethanol by using biomass, helping farmers, and creating energy independence? What happened, of course is that the ethanol mandates and subsidies drove up food prices, reduced wetlands, consumed a vast amount of water, and has little if any effect on energy independence.

It was only a few years ago that libertarians warned that growing corn to make ethanol as a gasoline substitute was a really dreadful idea. We were proven right and there is now almost universal disdain for the use of corn to make ethanol, except, of course, by the ethanol industry.

“The National Academy of Sciences estimated that globally biofuels expansion accounted for 20-40% of the price increases seen in 2007-8, when prices of many food crops doubled.”

To be fair, the EPA says that its ethanol rules aren’t driving up food prices. . But in that same article we read:

Meat producers and anti-hunger advocates were outraged. Because the law protects the flow of corn into fuel, they say, it drives corn prices higher for everyone else. Kristin Sundell, from ActionAid USA, predicted that “people around the world will go hungry due to spiking food prices while the EPA stubbornly clings to its misplaced faith in biofuels as a sustainable energy solution.” A of dairy, poultry, and livestock producers asked “how many more jobs and family farms have to be lost before we change this misguided policy.”

So now in the city of Boulder we have another really bad idea: tax ten cents for nearly every plastic shopping bag.

What could possibly be wrong with what the city council documented in its disposable bag fee ordinance?

… supports efforts to reduce the amount of waste that must be land filled and pursue “zero waste” as a long term goal by emphasizing waste prevention efforts.


… That the use of disposable bags has severe impacts on the environment on a local and global scale, including greenhouse gas emissions, …
The ordinance found more. We will deal with the two above.

The city council starts with the assumption that there a shortage of landfill space. As Slate Magazine says, “When will the United States run out of landfill space? Not for centuries. … the amount of space left in the ground isn’t a pressing concern.”

And, of course, there is the “zero waste” and landfill myths. From Ecoworld: “Recycling is not always the environmentally correct choice. Many items we recycle come from abundant raw materials and are inert and harmless when dumped. It costs more to recycle these than to bury the used and manufacture the new from scratch. Glass is a perfect example; plastic runs a close second. … All of America’s garbage for the next century could fit in just one landfill, only about 10 miles square.” That’s 0.000026 of the U.S.’s land.

We argue that using plastic bags, even disposable ones, helps the environment. The most obvious help is that plastic bags sequester hydrocarbons. 72.5% of the plastic bags used in the U.S. and are made out of polyethylene which is a waste product of natural gas refining. If ethane is not used to make plastic, it will have to be burned off, resulting in greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, so much for the council’s myth about greenhouse gas emissions from these bags.

So why does the council continue these myths? To us it is obvious: For the political control it exerts. The constant reminder every time we go to the grocery that government is watching is more effective than a picture of Big Brother at the checkout counter. Admitting that they are in error is simply too embarrassing. So the myths and lies are perpetuated.

We suspect that another reason that the council imposed this fee is that the plastic bags gum up the recycling machinery. We reply to our straw man argument that technology should work for people rather than the other way around.

We, the taxpayers, will be paying to perpetuate the myths and lies. Part of the ordinance reads, “Funds from the Disposable Bag Fee shall be used … Educate residents, businesses, and visitors … with mitigating the affects [sic] of single-use bags …”

Besides practicing real environmentalism, the wizards at the city council should learn basic grammar, too. The word should be effects and not affects.

And speaking of effects, there are other economic effects of this tax:

A tax would also impact local businesses as evidenced by other U.S. cities with similar taxes and bans. The intended impact is to have consumers switch to so-called “reusable” bags. The Chamber of Commerce of Victor Valley in California recently advised businesses that thieves often rely on reusable bags to steal merchandise. Out in Seattle, grocery stores have also suffered due to a spike in thefts. One store even blamed the city’s plastic bag ban for thousands of dollars in losses. Closer to home, in Washington, D.C., a Safeway supermarket representative noted that there has been a rise in shoplifting since the bag fee started.

The council calls this new bag tax a fee, but, of course, it’s a new tax on those who wish to use a product. According to the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, new taxes require a vote of the citizens and fees don’t. So the city council calls it a fee. George Orwell’s famous quote is worth repeating, “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”

So what are we Libertarians going to do about this?

We are considering (a) Organizing a citizens’ initiative to place on the ballot a prohibition on this new tax. (b) Handing out free plastic bags in front of the stores of cooperating retailers.

Boulder would not be the first in Colorado to overturn a bag ban. Basalt, Colo., voters overturn bag ban

So if you want to help restrain an out-of-control city council and help save the planet, take a plastic shopping bag from us.

To paraphrase the immortal words of Animal House’s Bluto Blutarsky, “Grab a bag. Don’t cost nothin’.”


Ralph Shnelvar
Chair, Libertarian Party of Boulder County

Quentin McKenna
Libertarian activist

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Sometimes we should just not compromise.

Gentle Reader, this opinion piece was written by my dear friend, Jim Remmert, one of the best and most knowledgeable Libertarians I know.

“Lately, there has been a lot of media criticism about the need for and absence of “compromise” between our elected officials in Washington. One political consultant, Douglas Schoen, has even written a book, the title of which (“Hopelessly Divided”) accurately describes the ideological gap that exists between our elected representatives in Washington, and the frustration of the electorate with them.

However, many of these officeholders told their constituents that, if elected, they would work for economic freedom, individual liberty, lower taxes and government fiscal responsibility. Is it reasonable to expect that these people would compromise with other politicians who promised their constituents that they would work to expand government, and increase taxes? In short, where is the compromise between politicians who promise freedom with individual responsibility and those who promise government benefits and controls in exchange for reelection and expanded government power? These two opposing views of government are diametrically opposed and cannot be reconciled.

We voters created this mess that is driving our country toward the brink of financial and social chaos. Only we can return our country to a functioning representative democracy by giving our elected representatives an unequivocal message in November. The candidates can clarify the choices that are available to us. But between now and then we voters must reach a clear consensus whether the country will go forward as a society of government-dependent or free people. Make up your mind voters and don’t blame politicians for being who they said they would be.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Starving us of health care innovation, a new tax

The following was published as a Letter to The Editor.
I have added more that was not published below.

Coming in 2013 (after the election) is a new tax 2.3% Obamacare excise tax on medical devices. That’s like a sales tax. It’s a tax on revenue, not profits.

That 2.3% tax will, according to Cook Group chairman Stephen Ferguson, raise their federal corporate taxes from 35% to 50% of profits. Let’s not forget to kick in another 4%-or-so in state income taxes. 25% of the profits that could go towards R&D vanish into the government’s maw.

This will raise, maybe, $20 billion in taxes.

Now, if you want innovation in health care, why in the world would you levy a special tax on it? For the tiny tax revenue, 0.005 of the federal budget?

I can come up with an answer: the government does not want innovation in health care.

New technologies can be expensive. For instance, MRI machines are $1 to $3 million each.

Clearly, one cannot stop innovation but one can slow it down. As Ferguson says, “”Many companies are being forced to limit investments in R&D in the U.S. and go abroad.” The U.S.’s competitive advantage in innovation will be shipped abroad. And those are GOOD jobs. But innovation will slow for a while.

So the government bean counters compute that if you slow down innovation, the cost of health care doesn’t go up even faster.

Of course, people will die because treatments weren’t brought to market. No need for death panels when the government-distorted market in health care will do it for them.

Not published in the letter is the following:

As if the effects listed above aren’t bad enough, there is a horrid effect on medical devices investment.

Consider two companies. Company X makes a computer-controlled electrical distributor for car engines. Company Y makes a computer-controlled pacemaker for human hearts.

Both companies are equally profitable before taxes. That is, they each make $10 on a sale of $100.

It really doesn’t matter what the federal corporate income tax is for these companies in terms of their relative merits but let’s say they have good accountants and have gotten the effective tax rate down from 35% to 20%.

On sales of $100, Company X gets to $8 ($10 less 20%) o distribute to investors as dividends or reinvest in R&D.

Company Y will also have $8 in the absence of the excise tax. But it’s going to be hit with an extra $2.30 (2.3% of $100) in taxes leavening Company Y with $5.80 in profits.

If you were going to invest in X or Y, which one would you invest in? Of course you’d invest in the car company rather than the medical devices company because it will spin off more cash. It;s like asking which bank you would put your money into: one which offers 1% or 2% on its CDs.

It should be easy to see that the medical devices companies will be starved for investment capital.

Which, I believe, was the intent of the drafters of the Obamamcare legislation in order to hold down the cost of health care by robbing us and our children of the innovation that these companies would create to make all of our lives better.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

I don’t need no stinkin’ driver’s license

Why is it that policies that seem utterly obvious and in the public interest to me are … . Well, read below.

I posted this on the Camera’s Jan 28th 2012 LTE blog.

Shnelvar: Why not let the insurance companies determine who can and can’t drive a car and under what conditions?

Heinlein: I think the technical term for that is “insane.”

Why is it that the first reaction to a market solution is deemed insane?

What I was proposing — and am proposing — is that insurance companies determine who gets a license to drive.

We actually have this market system already: If you have no insurance then you can’t drive the car.

If you are under 25, you likely can’t rent a car. No law says you can’t. It’s just that the car rental companies won’t rent to a high-risk group even if they have a state-approved license.

So let’s see what really happens in our world.

Parents send their kids to a state-approved 30-hour driving school course. (Did you know that a 14.5 year-old can actually take a correspondence course to get a permit?)

So a 14.5 year old, under the law, can get a permit. This means, of course, that some 14.5 year old kid is in control of a couple of tons of steel barreling down the highway while some adult is sitting next to them. I don’t mind this. The system seems to work.

In America we accept this risk of a 14.5 year old driving and we allow a 16-year-old to get a license and drive alone. Many parts of the world think we’re nuts as the minimum age for a driver’s license is 18.

So we take this hypothetical 16-year-old and drive them to the DMV and they get a 15-minute road test after passing a written test that is, mostly, irrelevant to safe driving. We all know what’s important and it sure ain’t on that quickly-forgotten written test.

Somehow, the waving of the magic wand by the state inspector allows us to ask an insurance company to insure our kid. If the child is male, the insurance will be “outrageous” because the insurer knows that young males as a group drive more recklessly than women of the same age. Perhaps we need to pass laws on the heinous kind of sex discrimination? Hell no! I’ve got two daughters.

So I ask the Gentle Reader, what is the purpose of that state inspector? The real filter on driving are the insurance companies. Why not let them decide who drives and who doesn’t?

“In order to help young drivers keep insurance affordable, some companies offer special training courses which, upon completion, result in lower rates for young drivers.” ( ). Does this have anything to do with state regulations? No.

Would an insurer insure an eleven-year-old? I don’t know. But I wonder what a jury might say if that eleven-year-old injured someone. Would we scream about age discrimination of an insurer refused to cover an eleven-year-old?

So let’s get rid of that state inspector and state driving license exam (and save the taxpayer some hassle and a few bucks in the process) and pass that responsibility to the insurers. It’s their cash on the line if the driver does something wrong.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

On Traffic Safety

SHARON LAROCQUE : Does anyone notice the manner in which drivers approach a traffic circle? It’s full speed ahead and never mind who is in the circle already.

Anyone have an answer?

Read this article about REMOVING traffic signs to make things safer:…

I’m sorry to pull a 123 here but the quote is worth reading because of the astonishing results and conclusions:

And Monderman certainly changed the landscape in the provincial city of Drachten, with the project that, in 2001, made his name. At the town center, in a crowded four-way intersection called the Laweiplein, Monderman removed not only the traffic lights but virtually every other traffic control. Instead of a space cluttered with poles, lights, “traffic islands,” and restrictive arrows, Monderman installed a radical kind of roundabout (a “squareabout,” in his words, because it really seemed more a town square than a traditional roundabout), marked only by a raised circle of grass in the middle, several fountains, and some very discreet indicators of the direction of traffic, which were required by law.

As I watched the intricate social ballet that occurred as cars and bikes slowed to enter the circle (pedestrians were meant to cross at crosswalks placed a bit before the intersection), Monderman performed a favorite trick. He walked, backward and with eyes closed, into the Laweiplein. The traffic made its way around him. No one honked, he wasn’t struck. Instead of a binary, mechanistic process—stop, go—the movement of traffic and pedestrians in the circle felt human and organic.

A year after the change, the results of this “extreme makeover” were striking: Not only had congestion decreased in the intersection—buses spent less time waiting to get through, for example—but there were half as many accidents, even though total car traffic was up by a third. Students from a local engineering college who studied the intersection reported that both drivers and, unusually, cyclists were using signals—of the electronic or hand variety—more often. They also found, in surveys, that residents, despite the measurable increase in safety, perceived the place to be more dangerous. This was music to Monderman’s ears. If they had not felt less secure, he said, he “would have changed it immediately.”

This is libertarianism at its heart. Increase perceived risk (you’re on your own, folks) and everyone looks after their own tushie and safety goes up and traffic flows more smoothly.

Is the system perfect? Of course not. There are still accidents. But there are 50% fewer accidents according to this article (but see below) and the world is a better and more organic place.

– – –

For those of you into traffic studies, you can find the traffic study here:…

I refer you to page 26. Truly remarkable. Accidents seem to have dropped about 90%.

There may be no libertarian utopia anywhere in this world but this example shows what can (and in my experience what usually does happen) when regulations and controls are relaxed and people are allowed to “do their own thing.”

Ralph Shnelvar
Libertarian Party of Boulder County

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

My top ten stupid suggestions

SwitzTrail :
Mr. Seigal, one of the quickest and least painful ways of balancing the budget would be if we could halve the roughly %9 unemployment rate with good paying jobs. If more people were receiving a decent paycheck, there would be more money to pay taxes, people would have more money to spend on stuff, and the companies that made that stuff could pay more taxes.

My stupid suggestions for getting the economy moving.

1) Raise the minimum wage to $50/hr. People will have more money to spend if we do. If that doesn’t get more money in people’s pockets, raise the minimum wage more.

2) Raise the capital gains tax so that people don’t invest in the stock market but pay their fair share to the government.

3) Give employers $4,000 per employee for jobs they have saved or created.

4) Give everyone a check for $20,000 pad for by a tax of $25,000 on everyone.

5) Eliminate the marriage penalty by offering an adultery permit.

6) Get rid of the deduction for charities. Make up for the lost revenue to charitable organizations by forcing people to volunteer.

7) Reduce the speed limit to 15 miles per hour. Since people will now spend more time in traffic, employers will be forced to hire more people.

8) Cash for Clunkers didn’t work. Make all those people give back that money so that we can try it again.

9) Solyndra failed because we didn’t give them enough money. We need to give Solyndra more money so they can hire those 1100 people back.

10) Tax Fox News $1.00 per viewer stolen from the fair news outlets.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment