Just an update on the AG race. Interesting thoughts here....
http://thirdbasepolitics.blogspot.com/2009/11/facing-reality.html
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Congressman breaks 4 promises in 1 day!
Below is an article from http://www.gouverneurtimes.com
http://www.gouverneurtimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7623:owens-to-break-campaign-promises&catid=60:st-lawrence-news&Itemid=175
Owens Breaks 4 Campaign Promises in first hour in Congress
Northern NY News
Written by Nathan Barker
Friday, 06 November 2009 12:04
GOUVERNEUR, NY - Congressman-elect Bill Owens was sworn in at noon today.
Owens indicated in a press release released shortly afterwards that he was now in favor of the the "Affordable Healthcare for America Act" bill in direct contrast to his earlier position during the election campaign.
According to Politico.com, Mr. Owens assured voters that he felt the public option had no place in the health care reform bill. Contrary to that position, Mr. Owens now indicates that he intends to vote in favor of the bill even though it now contains a public option.
UPDATED: A spokesman for Congressman Owens indicated correctly that Mr. Owens had recanted his solid position against public option later in the campaign, clarifying that he did not wish public option to be a 'litmus test' for the Health Reform bill and that on Oct. 30th, several days prior to the election, in a debate had stated that he generally supported the public option as it was now written (at that time.)
Mr. Owens also indicated during his campaign that he was firmly opposed to cutting Medicare benefits, taxing health care benefits, and increased taxes on the middle class in any way as you can see clearly in the screenshot below, taken directly from Mr. Owens' campaign website.
Click to enlarge image
The House Health reform bill contains sections that cut Medicare benefits, tax existing health care benefits, and increases taxes on the middle class, yet Mr. Owens stated today that he will now vote in favor of those things contrary to what he had promised the voters of NY's 23rd Congressional District that he would vote against.
Mr. Owens indicated in his press release today that "This legislation will reform the insurance industry and provide increased access to affordable healthcare without taxing healthcare benefits, cutting Medicare benefits or raising taxes on the middle class, and that is exactly the direction we need to go."
When The Gouverneur Times attempted to contact Mr. Owens to clarify this information, we received no direct response to our phone or email inquiries. Both FactCheck.org and the Congressional Budget Office agree that HR 3962 contains potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in planned cuts to Medicare, yet Mr. Owens indicates that he supports this legislation and says that it does not cut Medicare benefits. Either Mr. Owens has been snowed or the public is about to be.
HR 3962 also includes a range of various taxes on middle-class families as well as language to repeal tax relief already in place. Has Congressman Owens blindly followed Ms. Pelosi's rhetoric in believing that the end to a tax cut is not the same thing as an increase in taxes or is he hedging his bet with very carefully chosen words?
HR 3962 now also contains language that allows illegal immigrants to be covered under the legislation. When The Gouverneur Times attempted to contact Mr. Owens for clarification of this language, we received no response other than the press release heretofore mentioned. Specifically, we asked if illegal immigrants would be forced to purchase healthcare insurance as citizens will be and whether or not they would be forced to do so at standard rates or if they would qualify for the public option subsidy.
The Associated Press said this morning that: "House leaders said that, in keeping with the Hispanic Caucus' demands, there was not likely to be any prohibition added to the House bill against illegal immigrants shopping in the exchange."
In a speech made to Congress a short time ago, President Obama had stated that the bill would not contain support for illegal immigrants - a statement for which he was called a "liar" by Rep. Joe Wilson. Rep. Wilson was severely chastised for his comment at the time though it would now seem to be true.
The mixed-up mess that was the 23rd Congressional District Special Election was a close race between Democrat Bill Owens and Conservative Doug Hoffman. Many feel that it was unlikely Mr. Owens would have won those crucial few thousand votes if the voting public was aware of his intent with regard to the Health Care bill. The majority of residents in this district do not support the Health Reform bill as it is now written and many feel like they've become victims of a fraud perpetrated by their chosen candidate.
Breaking campaign promises is not unusual for politicians... it's a cliche. This is almost certainly a record though. Mr. Owens broke no less than 4 promises in his first 24 hours in office.
http://www.gouverneurtimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7623:owens-to-break-campaign-promises&catid=60:st-lawrence-news&Itemid=175
Owens Breaks 4 Campaign Promises in first hour in Congress
Northern NY News
Written by Nathan Barker
Friday, 06 November 2009 12:04
GOUVERNEUR, NY - Congressman-elect Bill Owens was sworn in at noon today.
Owens indicated in a press release released shortly afterwards that he was now in favor of the the "Affordable Healthcare for America Act" bill in direct contrast to his earlier position during the election campaign.
According to Politico.com, Mr. Owens assured voters that he felt the public option had no place in the health care reform bill. Contrary to that position, Mr. Owens now indicates that he intends to vote in favor of the bill even though it now contains a public option.
UPDATED: A spokesman for Congressman Owens indicated correctly that Mr. Owens had recanted his solid position against public option later in the campaign, clarifying that he did not wish public option to be a 'litmus test' for the Health Reform bill and that on Oct. 30th, several days prior to the election, in a debate had stated that he generally supported the public option as it was now written (at that time.)
Mr. Owens also indicated during his campaign that he was firmly opposed to cutting Medicare benefits, taxing health care benefits, and increased taxes on the middle class in any way as you can see clearly in the screenshot below, taken directly from Mr. Owens' campaign website.
Click to enlarge image
The House Health reform bill contains sections that cut Medicare benefits, tax existing health care benefits, and increases taxes on the middle class, yet Mr. Owens stated today that he will now vote in favor of those things contrary to what he had promised the voters of NY's 23rd Congressional District that he would vote against.
Mr. Owens indicated in his press release today that "This legislation will reform the insurance industry and provide increased access to affordable healthcare without taxing healthcare benefits, cutting Medicare benefits or raising taxes on the middle class, and that is exactly the direction we need to go."
When The Gouverneur Times attempted to contact Mr. Owens to clarify this information, we received no direct response to our phone or email inquiries. Both FactCheck.org and the Congressional Budget Office agree that HR 3962 contains potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in planned cuts to Medicare, yet Mr. Owens indicates that he supports this legislation and says that it does not cut Medicare benefits. Either Mr. Owens has been snowed or the public is about to be.
HR 3962 also includes a range of various taxes on middle-class families as well as language to repeal tax relief already in place. Has Congressman Owens blindly followed Ms. Pelosi's rhetoric in believing that the end to a tax cut is not the same thing as an increase in taxes or is he hedging his bet with very carefully chosen words?
HR 3962 now also contains language that allows illegal immigrants to be covered under the legislation. When The Gouverneur Times attempted to contact Mr. Owens for clarification of this language, we received no response other than the press release heretofore mentioned. Specifically, we asked if illegal immigrants would be forced to purchase healthcare insurance as citizens will be and whether or not they would be forced to do so at standard rates or if they would qualify for the public option subsidy.
The Associated Press said this morning that: "House leaders said that, in keeping with the Hispanic Caucus' demands, there was not likely to be any prohibition added to the House bill against illegal immigrants shopping in the exchange."
In a speech made to Congress a short time ago, President Obama had stated that the bill would not contain support for illegal immigrants - a statement for which he was called a "liar" by Rep. Joe Wilson. Rep. Wilson was severely chastised for his comment at the time though it would now seem to be true.
The mixed-up mess that was the 23rd Congressional District Special Election was a close race between Democrat Bill Owens and Conservative Doug Hoffman. Many feel that it was unlikely Mr. Owens would have won those crucial few thousand votes if the voting public was aware of his intent with regard to the Health Care bill. The majority of residents in this district do not support the Health Reform bill as it is now written and many feel like they've become victims of a fraud perpetrated by their chosen candidate.
Breaking campaign promises is not unusual for politicians... it's a cliche. This is almost certainly a record though. Mr. Owens broke no less than 4 promises in his first 24 hours in office.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Voter Fraud by College Dems day before Election!
Is this an example of what we can expect more of in 2010? Will Democrat Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner look into this matter??
http://www.electionjournal.org/2009/11/02/oh-vote-fraud-alert-bring-a-friend-to-vote-and-college-dems-will-pay-you-5-dollars/
http://www.electionjournal.org/2009/11/02/oh-vote-fraud-alert-bring-a-friend-to-vote-and-college-dems-will-pay-you-5-dollars/
Friday, October 30, 2009
Stricklands rating is DOWN
Below is an article that appears on the Dayton Daily News website 10/30. www.daytondailynews.com
Gov. Strickland’s Ohio approval rating drops to 48 percent; Obama at 52 percent
By William Hershey | Friday, October 30, 2009, 09:03 AM
Gov. Ted Strickland’s approval rating among Ohio adults has dropped to 48 percent in an Ohio Poll released on Friday, Oct. 30, the first time it had been below 50 percent in five Ohio Polls dating back to May 2007.
Gov. Ted StricklandIn the same poll, the approval rating for Strickland’s fellow Democrat, President Barack Obama, dropped to 52 percent, down from 63 percent in an April 2009 Ohio Poll, sponsored by the University of Cincinnati.
The poll also showed a glimmer of optimism about better times to come. Thirty three percent said economic conditions in Ohio were getting better, up from 20 percent in April and more than double the 12 percent in May who said things were getting better.
University of Cincinnati poll showing approval ratings for Gov. Strickland since May 2007.The drops in approval ratings has more immediate significance for Strickland, who’s up for re-election next year, than for Obama, just finishing the first year of a four-year term.
Eric Rademacher, Ohio Poll co-director, noted in an e-mail that more Ohioans - 48 percent - approve of Strickland’s job performance than disapprove - 37 percent.
“However, his approval has dropped 20 points since May of 07, which is almost identical to his increase in disapproval since,” Rademacher said. “So, that is a trend Strickland will want to reverse as we go into 2010.”
Other key poll findings:
*More Ohioans - 49 percent - disapprove of Strickland’s handling of the Ohio economy than approve - 41 percent.
*A majority of Democrats - 52 percent - approve of Strickland’s handling of the economy while a majority of Republicans - 58 percent - and independents - 59 percent - disapprove of how the governor’s handled the economy.
*Fifty percent of Ohioans approve of Obama’s handling of foreign affairs overall, down from 62 percent in April.
*Forty five percent of Ohioans now approve of Obama’s handling of the economy, down from 56 percent in April.
*Most Ohioans rate U.S. economic conditions as either fair - 45 percent - or poor- 47 percent, about the same as April.
*Also, most Ohioans also rate Ohio economic conditions as either fair - 39 percent - or poor - 52 percent -, again about the same as April.
The poll was taken from Oct. 14-Oct. 20 with 808 adults across the state and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percent.
Gov. Strickland’s Ohio approval rating drops to 48 percent; Obama at 52 percent
By William Hershey | Friday, October 30, 2009, 09:03 AM
Gov. Ted Strickland’s approval rating among Ohio adults has dropped to 48 percent in an Ohio Poll released on Friday, Oct. 30, the first time it had been below 50 percent in five Ohio Polls dating back to May 2007.
Gov. Ted StricklandIn the same poll, the approval rating for Strickland’s fellow Democrat, President Barack Obama, dropped to 52 percent, down from 63 percent in an April 2009 Ohio Poll, sponsored by the University of Cincinnati.
The poll also showed a glimmer of optimism about better times to come. Thirty three percent said economic conditions in Ohio were getting better, up from 20 percent in April and more than double the 12 percent in May who said things were getting better.
University of Cincinnati poll showing approval ratings for Gov. Strickland since May 2007.The drops in approval ratings has more immediate significance for Strickland, who’s up for re-election next year, than for Obama, just finishing the first year of a four-year term.
Eric Rademacher, Ohio Poll co-director, noted in an e-mail that more Ohioans - 48 percent - approve of Strickland’s job performance than disapprove - 37 percent.
“However, his approval has dropped 20 points since May of 07, which is almost identical to his increase in disapproval since,” Rademacher said. “So, that is a trend Strickland will want to reverse as we go into 2010.”
Other key poll findings:
*More Ohioans - 49 percent - disapprove of Strickland’s handling of the Ohio economy than approve - 41 percent.
*A majority of Democrats - 52 percent - approve of Strickland’s handling of the economy while a majority of Republicans - 58 percent - and independents - 59 percent - disapprove of how the governor’s handled the economy.
*Fifty percent of Ohioans approve of Obama’s handling of foreign affairs overall, down from 62 percent in April.
*Forty five percent of Ohioans now approve of Obama’s handling of the economy, down from 56 percent in April.
*Most Ohioans rate U.S. economic conditions as either fair - 45 percent - or poor- 47 percent, about the same as April.
*Also, most Ohioans also rate Ohio economic conditions as either fair - 39 percent - or poor - 52 percent -, again about the same as April.
The poll was taken from Oct. 14-Oct. 20 with 808 adults across the state and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percent.
Monday, October 26, 2009
School board intimidation? You decide....
Below is a strand of e-mail that has been passed to me a few times today. Now, I'm not throwing this up to pursuade anybody one way or the other. I'm putting this up to start a conversation and hear what some folks have to say. I'm curious to know because I've gotten this on more than one occasion today. Is it really a School Board member trying to intimidate an organization, or is it a candidate trying to win an election? You tell me your thoughts. Remember, please keep it clean and respectful.
-If you read the bottom e-mail first and move up the post it makes a bit more sense... (I believe "Tim" is a director/chair/president of a local football organization)
*To my knowledge the below e-mail strands are legitimate. The GCYR does not endorse either candidate. While Rob Dotson has addressed the GCYR at a monthly meeting, there is always a standing invitation to all candidates, and elected officials in Greene County. Email addresses have been removed from the strand.*
The intimidating methods used by certain Members of the Board of Education, please review. Understand a Board Member has no authority or power outside of the Public Meetings unless voted on by the Board for certain responsibilities. If anything a sitting member of the Board of Education has to be very careful not allow a perception of Abuse of Power or Conflict of Interests. Please read below and decide for yourself.
Rob Dotson
Candidate for Beavercreek Board of Education
Peg:
Let me clarify my involvement with the Football Parents Club. I met (name removed) a few times at football games I attended. After the Centerville game...which my wife and I attended...I introduced myself to Tim (last name removed), President of the Football Parents Club. I asked Tim if I could address the Football Parents Club. Mr. (last name removed) made it clear that they could not endorse a candidate or get involved in the election. He did not have a problem with me attending, since I was a Beavercreek School Parent with children that will be playing Eager Beavers next year and eventually participate in Beavercreek Football Team. During the meeting, Mr. (last name removed) clarified to the parents attending that my presence was not an endorsement.
I was told by a former PTO president that you had attended and spoke at PTO meetings while running for the Board of Education. I don't see my request to participate in the Football Club meeting any different from your appearances and participation in PTO meetings during past election cycles, PTO's are also 501(c)3 organizations. In my opinion, other candidates have equal opportunities to pursue organizations and fellowship with their members within the School System. Board Members really should be attending these organizations on a regular basis.
My discussion with the Club covered my High School Football background, including my All-Conference and Alabama Academic All-State status, as well as, receiving the Bryant-Jordan Scholar Athlete award. I discussed how football builds character and will influence these young people throughout their lives. I did ask about parent's concerns, as should all candidates. I shared my position that all programs representing Beavercreek City Schools should strive for excellence. The Beavercreek Band is a wonderful example of how dedicated students, parents, staff, and administrators can develop a program that rises to the very top of National recognition. Issues that the parent's conveyed to me about the Band and support of the Band, I directed back to the principal, athletic director and superintendent. Board members in no way have any authority or power, influence, or represent the Board outside of public Board meetings without a vote of the Board. I am sure you are aware of this. I don't see Mr. Absher's opinion of what we discussed at the meeting as an endorsement.
Peg , I will say how deeply disturbed I am with your e-mail to Mr. Absher, a dedicated parent volunteer. In my opinion, this type of intimidation and threatening communication is inappropriate for a sitting Board Member. I respect and appreciate your work for Beavercreek City Schools, especially your efforts with Mr. Morrison to secure improvements to the Football Stadium...which does support other activities outside of football. It is also my opinion that your e-mail brings credence to the innuendo and rumor about your intimidation methods and the use of your position to improperly influence administrators and organizations.
With respect and admiration,
Rob Dotson
Candidate Beavercreek Board of Education
Tim:
I am very deeply disturbed to read this message. First, the football
club, I believe, operates as a 501(3)(c) nonprofit in support of the
school district. I believe you have just put that nonprofit status at
risk. You are not a Political Action Committee and I believe if you
check with your attorney you are going to find that you have gone beyond
your charter.
Inviting a political candidate to attend a school related function for
the purposes of giving his pitch for election is a foul. The candidate
should know better, as well.
In addition, your support of this candidate to entities in the business
community is a representation of the school district. You simply have
no authority to do this. It appears that the district is backing your
endorsement.
I am referring this to the district authorities who deal with these type
of issues for their action. Meanwhile, since I really don't want to see
any harm come to the Football Club (who do you think was half of the
team that got your field, anyway?) I would make some suggestions:
You owe the other five candidates and audience with the same people, and
it cannot be on school grounds.
You, and the candidate, owe the other five people an apology as well. I
think you better send and email to all the people this one has been sent
to telling them where the meeting you are scheduling will be.
This is a very serious matter. I suggest you get on it. Any one of the
candidates, or the district can file a complaint that will definitely be
supported. You have nicely documented it for us.
Peg Arnold
*****Update*****
This is the article that appeared on the Dayton Daily News website 10/28. Just some more details to ponder...
By Christopher Magan, Staff Writer
10:30 PM Tuesday, October 27, 2009
BEAVERCREEK — A school board candidate’s visit to a football booster club meeting and subsequent e-mail from the club president offering information about his platform has upset other candidates.
Robert Dotson, one of five candidates for three school board seats, visited a Beavercreek Football Club meeting at the high school earlier this month to “talk about what concerns parents had.”
After the meeting, the group’s president, Tim Absher, sent an e-mail to some club members offering information about Dotson while acknowledging the club couldn’t officially back a candidate.
Generally, Ohio law prohibits nonprofit organizations from getting involved in campaigns. There are exceptions for public forums and other events when equal time is offered to all candidates.
Dotson’s visit and Absher’s e-mail raised a red flag with two sitting board members, Peg Arnold and Joyce Carter, who feared the move could put the group’s nonprofit status in jeopardy.
“I’m very concerned about making sure we play by the rules,” said Arnold, who sent a message to the club warning about the conflict. Arnold denied rumors she has campaigned at parent teacher organizations in past races.
Allowing only one candidate to speak to the group is unfair, Carter said.
Kim Grant, another candidate, said if Dotson broke the rules she didn’t think he did so maliciously. Candidate Donna Dempsey declined comment.
Dotson said he went to the booster meeting because he was interested in the club and was not campaigning.
“It just came down to talking about football and (club members) concerns,” he said.
Dotson added that he felt Arnold’s letter to club president Absher was “intimidating and threatening.”
Absher said Tuesday if there was an appearance of conflict it was an “innocent mistake on my part.”
-If you read the bottom e-mail first and move up the post it makes a bit more sense... (I believe "Tim" is a director/chair/president of a local football organization)
*To my knowledge the below e-mail strands are legitimate. The GCYR does not endorse either candidate. While Rob Dotson has addressed the GCYR at a monthly meeting, there is always a standing invitation to all candidates, and elected officials in Greene County. Email addresses have been removed from the strand.*
The intimidating methods used by certain Members of the Board of Education, please review. Understand a Board Member has no authority or power outside of the Public Meetings unless voted on by the Board for certain responsibilities. If anything a sitting member of the Board of Education has to be very careful not allow a perception of Abuse of Power or Conflict of Interests. Please read below and decide for yourself.
Rob Dotson
Candidate for Beavercreek Board of Education
Peg:
Let me clarify my involvement with the Football Parents Club. I met (name removed) a few times at football games I attended. After the Centerville game...which my wife and I attended...I introduced myself to Tim (last name removed), President of the Football Parents Club. I asked Tim if I could address the Football Parents Club. Mr. (last name removed) made it clear that they could not endorse a candidate or get involved in the election. He did not have a problem with me attending, since I was a Beavercreek School Parent with children that will be playing Eager Beavers next year and eventually participate in Beavercreek Football Team. During the meeting, Mr. (last name removed) clarified to the parents attending that my presence was not an endorsement.
I was told by a former PTO president that you had attended and spoke at PTO meetings while running for the Board of Education. I don't see my request to participate in the Football Club meeting any different from your appearances and participation in PTO meetings during past election cycles, PTO's are also 501(c)3 organizations. In my opinion, other candidates have equal opportunities to pursue organizations and fellowship with their members within the School System. Board Members really should be attending these organizations on a regular basis.
My discussion with the Club covered my High School Football background, including my All-Conference and Alabama Academic All-State status, as well as, receiving the Bryant-Jordan Scholar Athlete award. I discussed how football builds character and will influence these young people throughout their lives. I did ask about parent's concerns, as should all candidates. I shared my position that all programs representing Beavercreek City Schools should strive for excellence. The Beavercreek Band is a wonderful example of how dedicated students, parents, staff, and administrators can develop a program that rises to the very top of National recognition. Issues that the parent's conveyed to me about the Band and support of the Band, I directed back to the principal, athletic director and superintendent. Board members in no way have any authority or power, influence, or represent the Board outside of public Board meetings without a vote of the Board. I am sure you are aware of this. I don't see Mr. Absher's opinion of what we discussed at the meeting as an endorsement.
Peg , I will say how deeply disturbed I am with your e-mail to Mr. Absher, a dedicated parent volunteer. In my opinion, this type of intimidation and threatening communication is inappropriate for a sitting Board Member. I respect and appreciate your work for Beavercreek City Schools, especially your efforts with Mr. Morrison to secure improvements to the Football Stadium...which does support other activities outside of football. It is also my opinion that your e-mail brings credence to the innuendo and rumor about your intimidation methods and the use of your position to improperly influence administrators and organizations.
With respect and admiration,
Rob Dotson
Candidate Beavercreek Board of Education
Tim:
I am very deeply disturbed to read this message. First, the football
club, I believe, operates as a 501(3)(c) nonprofit in support of the
school district. I believe you have just put that nonprofit status at
risk. You are not a Political Action Committee and I believe if you
check with your attorney you are going to find that you have gone beyond
your charter.
Inviting a political candidate to attend a school related function for
the purposes of giving his pitch for election is a foul. The candidate
should know better, as well.
In addition, your support of this candidate to entities in the business
community is a representation of the school district. You simply have
no authority to do this. It appears that the district is backing your
endorsement.
I am referring this to the district authorities who deal with these type
of issues for their action. Meanwhile, since I really don't want to see
any harm come to the Football Club (who do you think was half of the
team that got your field, anyway?) I would make some suggestions:
You owe the other five candidates and audience with the same people, and
it cannot be on school grounds.
You, and the candidate, owe the other five people an apology as well. I
think you better send and email to all the people this one has been sent
to telling them where the meeting you are scheduling will be.
This is a very serious matter. I suggest you get on it. Any one of the
candidates, or the district can file a complaint that will definitely be
supported. You have nicely documented it for us.
Peg Arnold
*****Update*****
This is the article that appeared on the Dayton Daily News website 10/28. Just some more details to ponder...
By Christopher Magan, Staff Writer
10:30 PM Tuesday, October 27, 2009
BEAVERCREEK — A school board candidate’s visit to a football booster club meeting and subsequent e-mail from the club president offering information about his platform has upset other candidates.
Robert Dotson, one of five candidates for three school board seats, visited a Beavercreek Football Club meeting at the high school earlier this month to “talk about what concerns parents had.”
After the meeting, the group’s president, Tim Absher, sent an e-mail to some club members offering information about Dotson while acknowledging the club couldn’t officially back a candidate.
Generally, Ohio law prohibits nonprofit organizations from getting involved in campaigns. There are exceptions for public forums and other events when equal time is offered to all candidates.
Dotson’s visit and Absher’s e-mail raised a red flag with two sitting board members, Peg Arnold and Joyce Carter, who feared the move could put the group’s nonprofit status in jeopardy.
“I’m very concerned about making sure we play by the rules,” said Arnold, who sent a message to the club warning about the conflict. Arnold denied rumors she has campaigned at parent teacher organizations in past races.
Allowing only one candidate to speak to the group is unfair, Carter said.
Kim Grant, another candidate, said if Dotson broke the rules she didn’t think he did so maliciously. Candidate Donna Dempsey declined comment.
Dotson said he went to the booster meeting because he was interested in the club and was not campaigning.
“It just came down to talking about football and (club members) concerns,” he said.
Dotson added that he felt Arnold’s letter to club president Absher was “intimidating and threatening.”
Absher said Tuesday if there was an appearance of conflict it was an “innocent mistake on my part.”
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
