On April 28, 2003 a United States senator stood up in front of Congress and said these words:
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. AND, we should stand up and say, we are Americans and we have a RIGHT to debate and disagree with ANY administration!"
Those are the words of Hillary Clinton, who's husband is now trying to silence political speech against the Obama administration. Need we say more? Both Clintons are phonies when it comes to free speech.
Progressives cry "Sedition," "Traitor," "anti-American," and "anti-government" when people speak-out against the Obama administration and their policies. The Library of Congress under the direction of President Obama is trying to seek and obtain the ENTIRE Twitter archive dating back to 2006! Why is this happening? Is this an implied threat? Is this yet another attack on free speech?
Criticism is perfectly acceptable in a free and open society – no matter who is President. In an open and free society the greatest guarantee of freedom is free speech. Don't let ANY politician try and take it away from you – EVER!
We Are NOT Racists. We are NOT Violent. AND, we will NOT be silent any longer. We WILL speak-out against this administration so GET OVER IT!
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
Featured Article - ObamaCare's Real Costs
Health Care Costs on the Rise
by: Representative Michele Bachmann (R, MN)
"Many people have questioned (including myself) whether the President's health care bill would actually lower health care costs in the long term as the President promised. Today, their doubts were confirmed. According to research done by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the Democrats' health care bill now signed into law will raise our nation's health care costs, not lower them.
The House Republican Conference has compiled some highlights of the CMS findings:
by: Representative Michele Bachmann (R, MN)
"Many people have questioned (including myself) whether the President's health care bill would actually lower health care costs in the long term as the President promised. Today, their doubts were confirmed. According to research done by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the Democrats' health care bill now signed into law will raise our nation's health care costs, not lower them.
The House Republican Conference has compiled some highlights of the CMS findings:
- National health care expenditures will increase by $311 billion
- Health care increases to 21% of GDP by 2019
- ObamaCare spends more than $828 billion for health care coverage. (CMS
didn’t analyze all the tax increases, such as HSAs, FSAs, increasing the AGI
threshold, etc - The government will spend $410 billion to expand Medicaid
- Medicaid enrollment increases by 20 million new beneficiaries
- 18 million people will be uninsured (excluding 5 million illegal immigrants)
- Uninsured and those employers who don’t offer coverage will pay $120 billion in
taxes - 50% of seniors will lose their Medicare Advantage plans
- Some of the Medicare cost-control mechanisms may not be sustainable
- The $5 billion for High Risk Pools is not enough
- Doctors may drop out of Medicare because of the changes in Medicare
reimbursement rates - Medicare “savings” may be difficult to achieve
Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) will run a deficit
in 15 years
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Featured Article - Our Plan for Iran
America Unprepared
By Billy Hallowell, FrontPage Magazine
"This weekend, The New York Times reported on a secret, three-page memorandum that was composed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and sent to President Obama’s national security advisor this past January. The document highlights Gates’s fear that the United States is not adequately prepared for a nuclear Iran, while calling for effective long-term strategies in dealing with the defiant Mideast nation. This unintended admission showcases the American government’s lack of long-range preparedness in the face of an aggressive and resistant Iran, while leaving many to wonder how the administration will confront Iran’s ever-increasing volatility.
The recent memo, written just three months ago, is startling in its own regard, as it appears to warn the White House that the U.S. is ill-prepared for the potential nuclear fruits of Iran’s defiance. While this memo does, indeed, provide new internal insight, experts have been aware of the horrific dangers of a nuclear Iran for years. On Mon., Reuters reported that, with “sufficient foreign assistance,” Iran may have the capability to strike the U.S. with a missile by 2015. This, teamed with Iran’s very obvious nuclear ambitions and a plethora of “what ifs” should sanctions fail, has many experts worried about what is to come. As time progresses, Iranian leaders are making it clear that, regardless of Western pressures, nuclear plans are forging onward.
Over the past two weeks the Iran/U.S. saga has intensified. Just days prior to the memo’s release, Gates told reporters that he does not anticipate Iranian ability to produce nuclear weapons for at least another year. While this may seem like a settling piece of information, one year is hardly enough time to make viable headway with a nation that shows no signs of yielding. Gates vocalized this timeline in response to recent statements from Behzad Soltani, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization. According to Voice of America, Iran’s Fars news agency quotes the deputy head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization as saying “no country would even think about attacking Iran” after it joins the nuclear club. Fars also quotes the official, Behzad Soltani, as saying Iran plans to expand nuclear technology for “purposes other than energy and fuel production."
This exchange of sorts occurred around the same time last week that President Obama met with 47 world leaders to discuss global nuclear security. As Time Magazine reports, the event was an attempt by Obama to build support for international sanctions against Iran. In warding off U.S. pressures, Time reports that “…Iran has relied on its commercial relations — especially with Russia and China — to thwart U.S. efforts to isolate Iran.” Coincidently, Iran was not invited to Obama’s conference, so the nation held its own “summit” to counteract the U.S.-led event. In sum, 60 nations were in attendance (13 more than attended the U.S. conference), including representatives from both Russia and China.
Following the wake of the memo’s release, Gates seems to be downplaying the concerns that the document has sparked. However, the Jan. 2010 memorandum exposed appropriate urgency in a matter that can no longer be ignored. In the original memo, Gates plainly stated that the U.S. “…does not have an effective long-range policy for dealing with Iran’s steady progress toward nuclear capability.” In an effort to put the Jan. 2010 memo into context, Gates attempted to explain why he issued what some see as a “jolt to action” for the Obama administration. Gates said,
“The memo was not intended as a ‘wake up call’ or received as such by the President’s national security team. Rather, it presented a number of questions and proposals intended to contribute to an orderly and timely decision making process.”
In the end, regardless of the PR game administration officials are likely playing, the main story here is that the U.S. lacks long-term strategy in dealing with a dangerous and volatile rogue nation – a nation that is doing little to nothing to comply with international requests that it stop utilizing nuclear materials. Regardless of what Gates intended, or believes for that matter, the lack of a solidified plan is more than evident. So, the natural question is: Where do we go from here?
Obama’s nuclear summit was likely a starting point for what is to come. On April 14, just four days before the now-infamous memo leaked, The Los Angeles Times quoted Gates as saying that a broad, international agreement is extremely important if the U.S. plans to make headway with Iran. In fact, the Obama administration is pushing so hard for something viable that officials are willing to adopt weaker sanctions than they would like, so long as the United Nations and the international community join forces in furthering Iranian isolation. According to the Times,
[Gates] said a Security Council resolution “provides a new legal platform” for individual nations or groups such as the European Union to take more stringent action. In that way, the UN resolution acts as a “launching pad” for economic strictures that are much tougher than those adopted by the world organization, [Gates] said.
This indicates that the Obama administration is settling for whatever compromise its international colleagues are willing to make. As a result of pushback from other nations, the U.S. has abandoned a push for a ban on petroleum heading to and coming from Iran. With Turkey, China and Russia serving as potential blockades to Security Council action (the latter two have recently joined talks), U.N. sanctions may be weak at best. Still, the Times notes that insiders believe that U.N. agreement, regardless of strength in tone, makes a statement to Iran and is essential to the formulation of smaller contingencies of nations that, under U.S. leadership, may embrace stricter sanctions. While only time will tell how the scenario will play out, swift and stringent U.S. policy is surely due."
What Does This Mean?
Plain and simple, Obama is more focused on HIS domestic agenda at the expense of America's defense! Obama and his administration are incompetent in foreign affairs - especially when it comes to defending America from her enemies!
By Billy Hallowell, FrontPage Magazine
"This weekend, The New York Times reported on a secret, three-page memorandum that was composed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and sent to President Obama’s national security advisor this past January. The document highlights Gates’s fear that the United States is not adequately prepared for a nuclear Iran, while calling for effective long-term strategies in dealing with the defiant Mideast nation. This unintended admission showcases the American government’s lack of long-range preparedness in the face of an aggressive and resistant Iran, while leaving many to wonder how the administration will confront Iran’s ever-increasing volatility.
The recent memo, written just three months ago, is startling in its own regard, as it appears to warn the White House that the U.S. is ill-prepared for the potential nuclear fruits of Iran’s defiance. While this memo does, indeed, provide new internal insight, experts have been aware of the horrific dangers of a nuclear Iran for years. On Mon., Reuters reported that, with “sufficient foreign assistance,” Iran may have the capability to strike the U.S. with a missile by 2015. This, teamed with Iran’s very obvious nuclear ambitions and a plethora of “what ifs” should sanctions fail, has many experts worried about what is to come. As time progresses, Iranian leaders are making it clear that, regardless of Western pressures, nuclear plans are forging onward.
Over the past two weeks the Iran/U.S. saga has intensified. Just days prior to the memo’s release, Gates told reporters that he does not anticipate Iranian ability to produce nuclear weapons for at least another year. While this may seem like a settling piece of information, one year is hardly enough time to make viable headway with a nation that shows no signs of yielding. Gates vocalized this timeline in response to recent statements from Behzad Soltani, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization. According to Voice of America, Iran’s Fars news agency quotes the deputy head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization as saying “no country would even think about attacking Iran” after it joins the nuclear club. Fars also quotes the official, Behzad Soltani, as saying Iran plans to expand nuclear technology for “purposes other than energy and fuel production."
This exchange of sorts occurred around the same time last week that President Obama met with 47 world leaders to discuss global nuclear security. As Time Magazine reports, the event was an attempt by Obama to build support for international sanctions against Iran. In warding off U.S. pressures, Time reports that “…Iran has relied on its commercial relations — especially with Russia and China — to thwart U.S. efforts to isolate Iran.” Coincidently, Iran was not invited to Obama’s conference, so the nation held its own “summit” to counteract the U.S.-led event. In sum, 60 nations were in attendance (13 more than attended the U.S. conference), including representatives from both Russia and China.
Following the wake of the memo’s release, Gates seems to be downplaying the concerns that the document has sparked. However, the Jan. 2010 memorandum exposed appropriate urgency in a matter that can no longer be ignored. In the original memo, Gates plainly stated that the U.S. “…does not have an effective long-range policy for dealing with Iran’s steady progress toward nuclear capability.” In an effort to put the Jan. 2010 memo into context, Gates attempted to explain why he issued what some see as a “jolt to action” for the Obama administration. Gates said,
“The memo was not intended as a ‘wake up call’ or received as such by the President’s national security team. Rather, it presented a number of questions and proposals intended to contribute to an orderly and timely decision making process.”
In the end, regardless of the PR game administration officials are likely playing, the main story here is that the U.S. lacks long-term strategy in dealing with a dangerous and volatile rogue nation – a nation that is doing little to nothing to comply with international requests that it stop utilizing nuclear materials. Regardless of what Gates intended, or believes for that matter, the lack of a solidified plan is more than evident. So, the natural question is: Where do we go from here?
Obama’s nuclear summit was likely a starting point for what is to come. On April 14, just four days before the now-infamous memo leaked, The Los Angeles Times quoted Gates as saying that a broad, international agreement is extremely important if the U.S. plans to make headway with Iran. In fact, the Obama administration is pushing so hard for something viable that officials are willing to adopt weaker sanctions than they would like, so long as the United Nations and the international community join forces in furthering Iranian isolation. According to the Times,
[Gates] said a Security Council resolution “provides a new legal platform” for individual nations or groups such as the European Union to take more stringent action. In that way, the UN resolution acts as a “launching pad” for economic strictures that are much tougher than those adopted by the world organization, [Gates] said.
This indicates that the Obama administration is settling for whatever compromise its international colleagues are willing to make. As a result of pushback from other nations, the U.S. has abandoned a push for a ban on petroleum heading to and coming from Iran. With Turkey, China and Russia serving as potential blockades to Security Council action (the latter two have recently joined talks), U.N. sanctions may be weak at best. Still, the Times notes that insiders believe that U.N. agreement, regardless of strength in tone, makes a statement to Iran and is essential to the formulation of smaller contingencies of nations that, under U.S. leadership, may embrace stricter sanctions. While only time will tell how the scenario will play out, swift and stringent U.S. policy is surely due."
What Does This Mean?
Plain and simple, Obama is more focused on HIS domestic agenda at the expense of America's defense! Obama and his administration are incompetent in foreign affairs - especially when it comes to defending America from her enemies!
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
"Political Speech is Dangerous"
Former President Clinton was stating HIS opinion on TV recently regarding the Tea Parties and their rehetoric. He claims that their political speech is dangerous and will probably incite some violent act similar to the Oklahoma bombing during his administration.
How Dare You
The President is entitled to his opinion, but so are WE! Since when does a former President tell Americans that their political speech is "Dangerous?" He wants the Tea Party to be silent for fear they will cause violence from their speech. He claims that the Tea Party is creating the next Timothy Mcveigh. How can he make this conclusion?
Apparently President Clinton hasn't read the 1st Amendment lately – or not at all. It states the right of the people to peacefully assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. That's EXACTLY what the Tea Party does. There is no violence nor do they promote it.
Speech Causes Violence
Progressives ignore the truth or try to change it. Another of Saul Alinsky's tactics. This is yet another example of the Progressives attempt to silence opposing political views. If it isn't agreeable, it's "dangerous" or "racist." Now according to Clinton words about government's recklessness are MORE dangerous than the government acting recklessly! Not too logical? Clinton is stating that speech caused the Tim Mcveigh bombing – not the actions of HIS government at the Ruby Ridge massacre and in Waco, Texas at the Branch Davidian complex. Recall, that Clinton ordered tanks to break into private property in Waco, TX killing men, women, and children. These tanks weren't words – but government actions that provoked the Mcveigh bombing. Clinton forgot to mention these government actions that HE ordered.
About Violence
Martin Luther King summed it up like this:
"Those of us who engage in non-violent direct action, are not responsible for the tension. We're merely bringing to the surface, a tension that already exists!"
Civil disobedience is the core of American defiance against kings, emperors, and out-of-control government.
Tea Party Movement
The Tea Party gathers and protests because they see themselves in the original position as the Boston Tea Party. They want a constitutional government that follows the rule of law. The Tea Party wants to go back in the direction of limited government restrained by the Constitution – just the opposite of the current administration.
The Tea Party stands for Constitutional principles. NOT VIOLENCE! The movement is about adhering to the Constitution and limited government. Our government is out-of-control. Its corruption is absolutely vulgar. Americans are sick of it and hence, show it by their demonstrations. Get over it. We are NOT going away any time soon.
How Dare You
The President is entitled to his opinion, but so are WE! Since when does a former President tell Americans that their political speech is "Dangerous?" He wants the Tea Party to be silent for fear they will cause violence from their speech. He claims that the Tea Party is creating the next Timothy Mcveigh. How can he make this conclusion?
Apparently President Clinton hasn't read the 1st Amendment lately – or not at all. It states the right of the people to peacefully assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. That's EXACTLY what the Tea Party does. There is no violence nor do they promote it.
Speech Causes Violence
Progressives ignore the truth or try to change it. Another of Saul Alinsky's tactics. This is yet another example of the Progressives attempt to silence opposing political views. If it isn't agreeable, it's "dangerous" or "racist." Now according to Clinton words about government's recklessness are MORE dangerous than the government acting recklessly! Not too logical? Clinton is stating that speech caused the Tim Mcveigh bombing – not the actions of HIS government at the Ruby Ridge massacre and in Waco, Texas at the Branch Davidian complex. Recall, that Clinton ordered tanks to break into private property in Waco, TX killing men, women, and children. These tanks weren't words – but government actions that provoked the Mcveigh bombing. Clinton forgot to mention these government actions that HE ordered.
About Violence
Martin Luther King summed it up like this:
"Those of us who engage in non-violent direct action, are not responsible for the tension. We're merely bringing to the surface, a tension that already exists!"
Civil disobedience is the core of American defiance against kings, emperors, and out-of-control government.
Tea Party Movement
The Tea Party gathers and protests because they see themselves in the original position as the Boston Tea Party. They want a constitutional government that follows the rule of law. The Tea Party wants to go back in the direction of limited government restrained by the Constitution – just the opposite of the current administration.
The Tea Party stands for Constitutional principles. NOT VIOLENCE! The movement is about adhering to the Constitution and limited government. Our government is out-of-control. Its corruption is absolutely vulgar. Americans are sick of it and hence, show it by their demonstrations. Get over it. We are NOT going away any time soon.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Michigan Voters – Wake UP!
Remember the representative that told us that he doesn't have time to read the bills that he votes on? That was Representative John Conyers of Michigan. Well he's back blathering and insulting the Tea Party once again.
Mr. Conyers had this to say:
"If you're a Democrat and don't come out to vote, it could cost us some seats in some places in the state [of Michigan]. But we're here now to understand the frustration of the 'Teabaggers' and the people that are angry. Because many times, when you're angry, your rational abilities are compromised. And you get made at the wrong party or the wrong thing, or whoever's the president. The facts are, that many of the 'Teabaggers' that were hollering, and being profane, and screaming, and using profanity... Guess what? They are going to be beneficiaries. But they don't know it. And so we have... no we have to let them benefit."
First of all, the term "Teabaggers" is a derogatory term first used by the Lame Stream Media to besmirch and degrade the Tea Party movement. Conyers uses it to insult the movement.
Second, he believes that we are angry and we cannot think rationally. Unfortunately, he only got it half right. We ARE angry but we CAN and DO think quite rationally. We get it! That's WHY we are angry. We are tired of the name calling and insults hurled our way by career politicians. We are mainstream Americans. Because we disagree with government policies, Progressives like Conyers label us:
"Beneficiaries" he call us! Yes! We have just become beneficiaries of one of the greatest tax increases and government takeovers in the history of America. That's NOTHING to brag about! A one party vote passed ObamaCare and we now are the "beneficiaries" of your corruption, behind the doors deals, bribes, and God knows what else you did to pass that gigantic entitlement that punishes senior citizens.
Action to Take
Wake up Michiganders! Vote Conyers out of office. He's a career politician and needs to be out on the street looking for a job like the bulk of Michigan residents.
Mr. Conyers had this to say:
"If you're a Democrat and don't come out to vote, it could cost us some seats in some places in the state [of Michigan]. But we're here now to understand the frustration of the 'Teabaggers' and the people that are angry. Because many times, when you're angry, your rational abilities are compromised. And you get made at the wrong party or the wrong thing, or whoever's the president. The facts are, that many of the 'Teabaggers' that were hollering, and being profane, and screaming, and using profanity... Guess what? They are going to be beneficiaries. But they don't know it. And so we have... no we have to let them benefit."
First of all, the term "Teabaggers" is a derogatory term first used by the Lame Stream Media to besmirch and degrade the Tea Party movement. Conyers uses it to insult the movement.
Second, he believes that we are angry and we cannot think rationally. Unfortunately, he only got it half right. We ARE angry but we CAN and DO think quite rationally. We get it! That's WHY we are angry. We are tired of the name calling and insults hurled our way by career politicians. We are mainstream Americans. Because we disagree with government policies, Progressives like Conyers label us:
- Truthers
- Birthers
- Tea Bag Terrorists
- Teabaggers
- Extremists
- Racists
- Agitators
- Astro turf
- Tea Party Activists
- Oath Keepers
- un-American
- Nazis
- Evil-mongers
- Right-wing Militias
- Aryan groups
- neo-Klansmen
- knuckle-dragging hillbillies
- Traitors
"Beneficiaries" he call us! Yes! We have just become beneficiaries of one of the greatest tax increases and government takeovers in the history of America. That's NOTHING to brag about! A one party vote passed ObamaCare and we now are the "beneficiaries" of your corruption, behind the doors deals, bribes, and God knows what else you did to pass that gigantic entitlement that punishes senior citizens.
Action to Take
Wake up Michiganders! Vote Conyers out of office. He's a career politician and needs to be out on the street looking for a job like the bulk of Michigan residents.
Monday, April 19, 2010
What is Sedition?
Sedition is an act to incite or cause the disruption or overthrow the government. Apparently Joe Klein of Newsweek Magazine believes that Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are inciting violence to do just that. It's also apparent that Joe Klein hasn't read the 1st Amendment. Or if he has, he ignores its concepts completely.
Joe's Heinous Accusation
On a recent MSNBC TV show he stated the following:
"I did a little bit of research just before this show - it's on this little napkin here. I looked up the definition of sedition which is conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of the state. And a lot of these statements, especially the ones coming from people like Glenn Beck and to a certain extent Sarah Palin, rub right up close to being seditious."
(It's ironic that Joe Klein used a napkin for retaining his thoughts instead of just writing them down on the palm of his hand).
Klein blathered on speaking of Obama and the recession: "Two are two things going on here … One thing is he is African American, but that his name is Barack Hussein Obama. The other we've had a very scary economic crisis. And when people get scared, they get defensive and they get a little crazy."
Strategy Used
Accuse the people you don't like of breaking the law and have committed a felony. Level serious charges against these people for giving their opinions. Blame them for trying to overthrow the government. Saul Alinsky would be happy because these are HIS tactics at their best. Add racism into the mix and make viewers believe that the accused are preparing for war against the government because they don't like a black President.
History Does Repeat Itself
After George Washington served his two terms, he did not seek re-election. John Adams became the second President of the US. Adams believed in a more powerful government, with more controls and regulations. (Sound familiar?) Adams passed the Alien and Sedition Act that authorized imprisonment of persons who conspired "with intent to oppose any measure… of the government" – or who produced "any false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the Federal government and its officials.
Thomas Jefferson said that this legislation was "an experiment on the American mind to see how far it will bear an avowed violation of the Constitution." Jefferson considered the Sedition Act a direct violation of the 1st Amendment and the right to a free press. Under his leadership this law was repealed.
Once again there is talk of sedition. Ask yourself, who's bringing this language? Why are they doing it? Because they want to silence your voice. It opposes theirs and they will do anything, by any means, to stop you from voicing your opinions.
Action To Take
SPEAK YOUR VOICE LOUDLY AND CLEARLY! Do not be intimidated by Progressives like Joe Klein who want to diminish you freedoms and control your lives. Do NOT incite violence. We can win this battle with the truth.
Joe's Heinous Accusation
On a recent MSNBC TV show he stated the following:
"I did a little bit of research just before this show - it's on this little napkin here. I looked up the definition of sedition which is conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of the state. And a lot of these statements, especially the ones coming from people like Glenn Beck and to a certain extent Sarah Palin, rub right up close to being seditious."
(It's ironic that Joe Klein used a napkin for retaining his thoughts instead of just writing them down on the palm of his hand).
Klein blathered on speaking of Obama and the recession: "Two are two things going on here … One thing is he is African American, but that his name is Barack Hussein Obama. The other we've had a very scary economic crisis. And when people get scared, they get defensive and they get a little crazy."
Strategy Used
Accuse the people you don't like of breaking the law and have committed a felony. Level serious charges against these people for giving their opinions. Blame them for trying to overthrow the government. Saul Alinsky would be happy because these are HIS tactics at their best. Add racism into the mix and make viewers believe that the accused are preparing for war against the government because they don't like a black President.
History Does Repeat Itself
After George Washington served his two terms, he did not seek re-election. John Adams became the second President of the US. Adams believed in a more powerful government, with more controls and regulations. (Sound familiar?) Adams passed the Alien and Sedition Act that authorized imprisonment of persons who conspired "with intent to oppose any measure… of the government" – or who produced "any false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the Federal government and its officials.
Thomas Jefferson said that this legislation was "an experiment on the American mind to see how far it will bear an avowed violation of the Constitution." Jefferson considered the Sedition Act a direct violation of the 1st Amendment and the right to a free press. Under his leadership this law was repealed.
Once again there is talk of sedition. Ask yourself, who's bringing this language? Why are they doing it? Because they want to silence your voice. It opposes theirs and they will do anything, by any means, to stop you from voicing your opinions.
Action To Take
SPEAK YOUR VOICE LOUDLY AND CLEARLY! Do not be intimidated by Progressives like Joe Klein who want to diminish you freedoms and control your lives. Do NOT incite violence. We can win this battle with the truth.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Cartoon that Predicted the Future
This cartoon was first shown in 1948! Ironically it predicted where we are today 62 years ago!
Please take time to watch it. It runs just short of 10 minutes and it is well worth the viewing and YOUR time.
Enjoy!
Please take time to watch it. It runs just short of 10 minutes and it is well worth the viewing and YOUR time.
Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
