Tag Archives: RNC chairman

President Uses State of the Union To Talk Out Of Both Sides of His Mouth

Bookmark and Share     On an occasion such as the State of The Union, there exists a certain suspense that electrifies the air for those who appreciate and understand the power of the presidency. It stems from knowing that a true leader and the ability of powerful articulation can turn things around with the utterance of a just a few words. If a President ever needed to draw on such leadership and powerful articulation, Barack Obama did.

After being undeniably thumped by an electorate unhappy with his priorities and failings, President Obama needed to set a new tone, distract us away from the old one and try to create a new positive, hopeful, agenda. To a degree, a significant portion of the population will fall for the rhetorical pros that the President offered and believe that he really did learn a lesson and drop his aggressive socialist agenda.  But in the coming months, it looks like the President’s deeds will betray his words.

President Obama’s address was carefully targeted.  For instance, in many ways, the President tried to appeal to his most vocal critics regarding an issue that many are quite critical of Democrats overr………………taxes.   Despite claims that Bush tax cuts need to expire because they hurt, President Obama took great credit for offering a Christmas tree of tax cuts. He even touted the merits of trickle-down economics when he stated that his tax cuts “gave Americans more buying power”. What President Obama failed to mention was that his seemingly long list of supposed tax cuts in the past and the ones he is proposing in the future are so meager that their benefits are hardly felt.

President Obama’s newfound faith in tax cuts was merely one of many 180 degree turns that his rhetoric took from the reality of his policies.

He spoke of bi-partisanship.

On this he may have learned lesson, because his words about his future conduct, sharply contrasted his past actions. He promised monthly meetings with the Republican leadership. He endorsed a bipartisan fiscal commission and he even appealed to Republicans and urged them to be bipartisan. Yet, this is the same man who refused to allow Republicans to sit down at the table with him and Democrat leaders as they tried to hammer out their version of healthcare reform. Where was President Obama’s yearning for bipartisanship then?

What a difference an election makes.

The election of Republican Scott Brown destroys the unbridled control of liberals and now, when the President will need to deal with Republicans, he wants bipartisanship. He should get it but he should also practice it as he preaches it.

Our Commander-In-Chief once again spoke of transparency.  He demanded that earmarks be posted on a website so that all can see them before they get voted on. I support the concept, so long as it does not call for an entire new federal department to run and as long as it does not distort the numbers as was the case with Recovery.gov, which was suppose to show where all the stimulus money was going and what is was producing.  That site created fictitious congressional districts and fake jobs.  But what about this push for transparency? Was it practiced by the President when he refused to allow C-Span into his meetings with Democrats involving healthcare reform? 

And what about earmarks?

They did not bother the President in any of the 124 bills that he signed into law during his first year in office.  I failed to hear him protest the hundreds of millions earmarked for Arkansas’  Blanche Lincloln, Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu or North Dakota’s Ben Nelson when they were given earmarks in return for their support of healthcare reform.

President Obama also seemingly reversed his position on energy too.

Suddenly he endorses the construction of nuclear power facilities and the drilling of domestic oil. He opposed such measures in the past,  so what accounts for the sudden reversal? The truth is, it is not a reversal at all. As with all that the President said he wants to forge ahead with, subtle caveats were offered, In this case, he would move on nuclear and domestic oil energy independence but only if  his Cap-and Trade scheme is passed in Senate. Hence the new use of the both climateand energy together in one bill.  The White House intends to link support of his Cap-and-Trade environmental scheme to energy and stand in the way of one without the other.  Is that compromise?  What the President failed to mention was that Cap-and-Trade would amount to the greatest transfer of wealth in history and tax everything from the air we breathe to the flatulence of each farm animal that a farmer owns.

Indeed President Obama sounded hopeful and at times he even sounded conservative. But the truth is that the Obama soundtrack is as about as out of sync sync with his actual goals as a poorly made karate flick or Japanese monster movie dubbed over in English.

In general the President’s first State of the Union had a rightfully optimistic tone. He is right when he stated ” I have never been more hopeful about America than I am tonight because of our strength” .   The phrase was remiscent of First Lady Michelle Obama’s claim to have never been more proud of America than she was when he husband was winnin g Democrat presidential primaries. 

But in this case the President was right to be hopeful because of our strength but what he does not yet understand is that that strength comes from the American people, not their government.

In the Republican response to the President , Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell effectively pointed this out when spoke of the need for a proper limited government at every level and reminded us that top down leadership is not working and that the government closest to the people is the best government.

Governor McDonnell reminded us that Cap-and-Trade does not create jobs and lower taxes. Yet while the President spent much time talking about job creation and a prosperous people, his liberal Cap-and-Trade proposals would hurt job growth and make energy more unaffordable.

In short, the President used the State of the Union to restore a badly damaged image and establish some sense of confidence as he moves ahead. But his words contradicted his actions and his policy initiatives contradicted his Party’s direction. In the end, his State of the Union address actually created more questions than it answered and sparked more doubt than confidence. So I suspect that as next 10 months leading up to the midterm elections unfolds, despite his stated dislike for what he called “the perpetual campaign”, President Obama will be campaigning quite hard to save his party’s losses and as such he will continue to talk out of both sides of his mouth.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

New Jersey Democrats Take Gays For A Ride

Bookmark and Share    In a vote of 14 to 20, yesterday the New Jersey State Senate failed to pass civil rights legislation.

The entire episode was an exercise of disgusting political chicanery. It demonstrated several truths about Democrats in general, and also about the type of leader that Democrats have elected to be the next Senate President.

Democrats have been in control, total control, of New Jersey since disgraced former Governor Jim McGreevey was elected in 2001. In what turns out to be quite ironic, McGreevey had outed himself in a speech announcing his resignation which was prompted by financial irregularities and unethical conduct.  The admission that he was gay was simply done to distract from the charges that were about to bring him down. But during his time as Governor and since then, the state has been driven into utter despair, seen unions hold the state hostage and break the budget, seen the size and scope of government grow exponentially along with taxes, tolls and all other expenses, while businesses fled, unemployment skyrocketed and the quality of life plummeted. The bottom line is that Democrats have done nothing but make things worse while playing games and offering lip service.

Part of that game has been the exploitation of homosexuals.

In the last eight years of their stranglehold on New Jersey government, Democrats have done nothing but offer the gay community lip service. Year after year, on the issue of gay marriage, the homosexual community has been told ‘now is not the time for a vote on that issue, but next year we will take it up for sure’. Each of the eight ‘next years’ came and went as Governor McGreevey, Acting Governor Dick Codey and inept Governor Corzine neglected to make the issue a priority.

Yet in the final weeks of their monopol-ike control of Trenton, as a newly elected Republican Governor is about to come to town, now Democrats in the State senate finally acted.

 But why?

 The answer is that the Democrat Party could care less about the gay community and simply exploit them for support at election time.

If this were not the case, if Democrats sincerely believed their rhetoric, gay marriage would have been passed at any point during the last past eight years. If their was any sincere motivation behind Democrats supposed support for the gay community, one of the best and most appropriate symbolic times for them to have taken the issue up would have been shortly after disgraced Governor Jim McGreevey tried to distract from his political scandals by announcing that he was a “gay -American”.

But Democrats were afraid that thier hold on power was tenuous. So they refused to rock the boat on gay marriage. Instead they made promises and claimed their undying desire to see same sex unions be called “marriages

In coming Governor Chris Christie has made it clear that he would veto any attempt to redefine marriage as a union between anything but a man and a woman. That made it essential for Democrats to act now.

Even though Governor-deject Corzine failed to move any gay marriage initiative, he said he would, unlike Christie, sign such an initiative into law. So it was now, or if not never, at least not for many years, before gay marriage in New Jersey could sail through the legislative process and become state law.

Previously, Senate President Codey failed to put it at the top of the Senate agenda and several different Assembly Speakers also left the issue on the back burner. And even though the closing days of a Democrat administration that was supportive of gay marriage was upon us, they still hesitated to deal with the issue and cancelled and delayed hearings and votes on the issue.

So why was there suddenly a vote in the State Senate?


Quite unceremoniously, long serving Senate President and often on again and off again Acting Governor Dick Codey, was voted out of his position as Senate President in coup that was orchestrated by State Senator Stephen Sweeney from South Jersey.

Sweeney’s senate district is not quite as safe for Democrats as is Dick Codey’s is  North Jersey district  for him. So even though Dick Codey lost his position as Senate President, his chances of getting reelected to the senate are greater than Sweeney’s. So a vote by Dick Codey for or against gay marriage is not as pivotal to Codey’s reelection chances as it is to Sweeney’s. So while in his final days as Senate President, Dick Codey finally called a vote on gay marriage. He was essentially putting Sweeney, the man who dethroned him, between a rock and a hard place before he assumed leadership of the Senate. Codey was setting up Sweeney to start off his Senate presidency as damaged goods by forcing Sweeney to either offend gay voters and the their well organized political lobby machine or a vast number of voters in his district.

As was expected from the get go, gay marriage failed in the senate with only 14 votes for it and 20 votes against it.

But that final tally adds up to 34 votes.

There are 40 State Senators.

17 are Republican and 23 are Democrats. One seat is vacant and Sen. Diane Allen (R-Burlington), was absent for health reasons and Sen. Andrew Ciesla (R-Ocean) was absent for unknown reasons.

That leaves three votes to be accounted for.

Those final three votes were abstentions cast by three Democrats………Sen. Paul Sarlo (D-Bergen), Sen. Jim Beach (D-Camden) and ironically, Democrat Senate President-elect Stephen Sweeney of Gloucester.

In what proved to be a profile of cowardice, the incoming Democrat leader of the Senate tried to dodge the challenge that the outgoing Senate President presented to him by avoiding a vote on the issue at all.

By avoiding an official position on the issue, Sweeney may think he outsmarted Dick Codey but all he did was wound himself even more.

The gay community will not forget Sweeney’s lack of support and voters in his district will be leery of him. But more than that, he will now assume office under a cloud of indifference and looking spineless. Not a very good position for a leader to be in during negotiations, an essential part to political leadership.

In the end, this entire tangled web of political gamesmanship has been a ridiculously insincere act that has made a sham of the legislative process. On top of that, aside from proving that the incoming Senate President is a spineless politician concerned more with votes than policies, he has also proven that Democrats simply see the gay community as a voting bloc to be exploited and counted on for votes at election time.

The facts prove it.

Eight years of total control and all Democrats have done is create wedge issues with such things as more severe penalties for crimes committed against homosexuals. The concept of increased penalties for hate crimes simply exists for Democrats to try to make Republicans seem anti-gay by having to vote against bills that are promoted as protection for gays but in reality are anything but more protection. The truth is that increased penalties for crimes committed against someone because of their color, faith or orientation, does not make anyone safer, it simply claims that crime and brutality committed against one person is not as important when committed against another. That is just wrong. But to force Republicans to go on the record and oppose such unfair legislation, allows Democrats to come out and say to the gay community…. ’you see they voted against you’.

Such a claim is untrue but the truth never deters politicians from exploiting an issue or group of people.

In the case of gay marriage, homosexuals were simply used by Democrats.

New Jersey Democrats hemmed and hawed about ever taking up the issue and after being in total control for eight years, they failed to consider gay marriage until it could be used as a way to get revenge. Then and only then did the issue of gay marriage come up.

Part of the problem is the gay community itself.

Gay men and women have placed themselves staunchly in the Democrat camp. Their unconditional support of all Democrats, has allowed them to be taken for granted.

Democrats have come to understand that the gay vote is in their pocket. So aside from using certain gay issues as wedge issues, there is little a Democrat has to do to get the vote of a gay man or woman. They are comfortable in the thought that no matter what they do, homosexuals will not vote for a Republican.

In many ways, the homosexual community deserved being used a pawn in a political game. They blindly support Democrat candidates. In many instances some are motivated more by the prospect of voting against a Republican than they are by the Democrat they end up voting for. But they do vote for that Democrat. No matter what.

This is a mistake.

Most Republicans are not anti-gay. Most…. not all, but most. Most Republicans also do not oppose recognition of same sex marriages with equal legal rights. What many do oppose is simply any attempt to redefine the commonly understood and established meaning of the word marriage.

I for one support domestic unions.

I support maintaining the traditional definition of the word “marriage” as that of a union between heterosexuals and the term “domestic union” as that of a union between homosexuals.

This is not a ‘separate but equal’ position as many liberals have come to argue. There is a difference between the two hereWhen we distinguish one individual as a man or a woman, or a boy or girl, are we promoting a separate but equal policy? When you celebrate Christmas do you call it St. Patrick’s Day? There is a difference between each of the two examples stated. A man or a woman are both human but one is a male and the other is a female. Christmas and St. Patrick’s are both holidays but they are distinctly different type of holidays.

In the end, the distinction between the makeup a heterosexual and homosexual “union” is there. What is not any different is the existing love and commitment that exists. That is something that many Republicans do not deny. For that reason, many Republicans do support equal recognition of both type of unions and equal treatment of both unions under law.

Oddly, one man who has received wide support from the gay community has a similar view.

President Barack Obama has repeatedly stated that he believes marriage is something that is reserved for a man and a woman. This did not stop gay men and women from voting for him in pluralities that approach that of the 94% total of the African-American vote which he received in 2008.

Perhaps, the gay community which accuses the right of being uncompromising, should stop acting hypocritically and refusing to accept same-sex partnerships that are treated equally by the law but distinguished by there make up.

Another thing that the gay community must begin to do is stop being so monolithically devoted to a political Party that is exploiting them and taking advantage of them. The example that New Jersey Democrats have offered them drives that point home.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

In New Jersey, Former Phila. Eagle To Run For Congress & Former CNN Anchor To Run For Senate

Bookmark and Share     John Adler is a freshman Democrat Congressman representing New Jersey’s 3rd Congressional District. He came to office after winning a close election down ticket from the landslide, 15% plurality that Barack Obama polled on the same line.

New Jersey’s 3rd Congressional District is not a safe district for Democrats and Adler’s 2008 victory undoubtedly had a lot to do with the popularity of then Senator Obama. Under normal circumstances it very well may not have happened. The 3rd C.D. was previously occupied by Republicans for more than two decades by James Saxton who decided to retire and not stand for reelection. The stars were aligned perfectly for Adler. It was an open seat, his Republican opponent ran a lousy campaign and the Republican nominee at the top of the Republican didn’t even excite Republicans. Whereas, Adler ran a well financed campaign that offered some crippling negative ads against his Republican opponent and was further aided by the trickle down of support on the Democrat ticket from the punishing popularity of Barack Obama.

But 2010 may not be as good.

President Obama is not on the ticket and even if he was, the shine has been taken off his image and Democrats are all suffering from a precipitous drop in popularity. To make matters worse, for Democrats, incumbents are totally out of favor with the electorate. Add to that the fact that the popular, newly elected Governor of New Jersey will be available to throw his support behind the Republican nominee for Congress in the 3rd and a slew of votes that Adler voted on the wrong side of and what you have is a lining up of stars against Adler’s favor this time around.

Adler’s recent votes for things such as the extreme Cap-and-Traded bill and other historic spending measures have not exactly pleased moderates and right of center 3rd district voters and could provide great fodder to attack Adler with. At the same time, in an attempt to not totally alienate himself with the moderate and right leaning voters of the 3rd, he was one of those Democrats who was let off the hook by Nancy Pelosi and allowed to vote against the government healthcare takeover bill. While that may have not infuriated some, it has turned Adler’s own liberal against him.

For them, as depicted in the ad seen here, Adler’s lack of support for socialist medicine on that one vote, is considered an “act of betrayal” to fellow Democrats and they intend to punish him. And they may just not be willing to sit at home and support him. They are preparing to run someone against him in a primary.

So Adler will be weak and vulnerable.

And now, here comes Jon Runyan.

Runyan is an offensive lineman in the NFL who is currently playing for the San Diego Chargers but spent more than 9 years as a popular player with the popular Philadelphia Eagles, a team that carries a lot of influence in the southern portions of the Jersey district which is filled to the rim with loyal Eagles fans.

The 35 year old Runyan has announced that this will be his last year in the NFL as he intends to retire from running in the football and start running for Congress….against John Adler. He made his candidacy known in communications with South Jersey Republican county leaders. In his remarks, he stated;

“I look forward to a successful end to my career on the field,” Runyan said, “and a spirited campaign against Congressman Adler in 2010.”

Where exactly Jon Runyan stands on the issues is not known. That small fact should be enough to contain any enthusiasm but I have a strong sense that a man who has been literally busting his bones for a living, probably has a conservative things and it sounds to me like he is fed up with the lurch to the left that the nation has taken. I also have a feeling that the slew of votes that his new representative in Congress has made, which helped to promote that leftward turn, doesn’t sit well with Runyan. In fact, I would say it has pissed off him enough to throw some muscle behind his opinions and jump from the gridiron and into the fire of the stadium of politics.

If that is true, has yet to be seen, so while I will not start jumping down in glee over Runyan, I do hold out hope and look forward to hearing what he to say.

Looking past next year’s midterm elections, another New Jerseyan is making his plans  clearer.

In an interview on Former Senator Fred Thompson’s radio show, Lou Dobbs, who recently ditched the low rated CNN, made it clear that he is considering a 2012 run for the US Senate against New Jersey liberal Bob Menendez.  Dobb also suggested  that it could be a stepping stone to the White House. 

That to me is a little arrogant of Dobbs and not exactly what voters who elect you to be their senator want to hear.   They want to know that if the elect you, they can count on you to do the job they elected you to.  And besides, try to win the senate seat before you go trying to to move into into the White House in 2016. 

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

“HOPE Is Fading Fast” Takes On New Meaning For President Obama

Bookmark and Share    I wish I could take credit for this little gem but it comes to POLITICS 24/7  from our great conservative compatriots at PatriotRoom.com.   

But more than that, I wish I were the creative individual that came up with the snappy play on words and use of imagery that makes the product that Patriot Room brought to our attention a must have for anyone concerned with the direction our country is being taken in.

 RedWhiteBlue.gif picture by kempite

From Patriot Room:

T-shirt of the day: Hope is Fading Fast

by: Bill Dupray   posted: 2009-11-24 11:13:00

For the record, we are not affiliated with the company selling the shirts. But we certainly wish we were, because they are gonna sell a pile of these.

RedWhiteBlue.gif picture by kempite

I think this is just great!

But I will tell you now, a look behind the maker and distributor of this shirt, “The Propagandist” and “Freshjive”, tells me that I won’t be parting with any of my money for their profit.

The two outfits seem to be a little out there in their perceptions.  For them “Hope Is Fading Fast” because they see President Obama as being just like President Bush, and for them, hope is fading fast” because the liberal messiah is not as liberal as they “hoped” for.  

So……. sorry, but my dough goes for that which is made in America (whatever is still made in America) and to those who are not trying to promote anarchy or socialism.

Los Angeles street artist Shepard Fairey poses in January for a picture with his "Hope" artwork used to promote the Obama campaign.But in this great capitalist, democracy of ours,  perhaps a knockoff is in the works? I am pretty sure that President Obama has not yet patented the word he used to describe himself and his ascendency to the presidency, “Hope”.  I am also sure that “Freshjive” and “The Propagandist” have not patented or gotten their own copywrite on the already, Associated Press copywritten  image that artist  Shepherd Fairey stole inorder to paint his iconic emblem of the presidential campaign, in the first place.     I see no reason why others can’t make similar, shirts, keyword “similar”.

 If I could only find all of my old silk screening accessories, I’d be on it like on white on rice. 

Now if Mike Steele could start worrying more about fundraising for the RNC than the credit he wants and the press he is seeking, he’d be having “similar” shirts made up and sold to bring in some additional profits for next year’s midterm elections  (see story here).

But since Mike Steele is  busy firing RNC staffers because he feels they haven’t done enough to get him the press that gives him all the credit for the recent Republican successes in the ’09 election cycle, I wont be counting on that.  So I am looking into my own version of “Hope Is Fading Fast”.  Perhaps one that has the POLITICS 24/7 logo on the back.   If I can work that one out, as a Republican, with whatever profit there is, I will donate half to the 2010 campaigns of the most deserving candidates and as a proud pro-capitalist American , keep the other half for myself.

Anyone want to make it a joint venture?  All conservative backers can contact  me, Kempite, at LiberalsRlosers@aol.com.  Let’s make a deal!

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics


code orange Pictures, Images and Photos

Bookmark and Share      On Friday Republican national committee members will be electing a new chairman of the Republican National Committee. There are six people running for the job and for that they should all be commended. There are not many people who would be willing to take on the responsibility of bringing our badly beaten party back to life but some people care enough to risk their reputations and sacrifice their time for the causes that they believe in.

Such is the case with Ken Blackewell, Saul Anuzis, Mike Steele, Katon Dawson, Chip Saltsman and incumbent chairman Mike Duncan.

All of these men bring some good ideas to the table, some more than others.

Mike Duncan, the incumbent probably has the toughest case to present for reelecting him. Since he took over after Republicans lost congress in 2006, we only lost more. That cannot all be blamed on him. Republican elected officials did not perform the way the should, so blame lies where blame stems from but Duncan still has not presented a case that portrays him as a superior choice.

Chip Saltsman, the former Tennessee G.O.P. Chair and former Mike Huckabee campaign manager should not be running.

After Saltsman sent out copies of the “Barack The Magic Negro” CD as Christmas gifts to voting members of the national committee, whether he realized it or not, he disqualified himself. I for one do not want someone who is obviously so insensitive and unaware of the ramifications of his actions to chair the R.N.C.

As for the rest, well they are all good.

I like Mike Steele and wish he won his Senate seat in Maryland. He has the type of thinking that we need in Congress.

However, I do not know if he has what it takes to rebuild the party. In that area I favored Michigan’s Republican state Chairman, Saul Anuzis.

Anuzis is down to earth and into the grassroots. As the chair of Michigan’s Republican party he has been keeping things competitive and he is on top of the technology that we need to implement nationally.



However Ohio’s former Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell is who I have decided to support.

He not only believes that the grassroots should shape policy direction, he believes that the grassroots should lead the way and he wants to make the state and local parties true shareholders in our national effort. Sort of a bottom up strategy.

I believe in that strategy.

I believe that instead of Republican officials coming before the people and trying to tell us what is best for us, we should have the ability to tell them what is best for us and then they should run that way and with our message, lead in that direction.

Calling his plan to rebuild the party a “Conservative Resurgence Plan” Blackwell states “We will bring our party back by clearly articulating conservative principles, inspiring our base, decentralizing authority, and building technical and precinct–level organizational capacity to facilitate a conservative resurgence across the country for the GOP.”

I wont say that says it all but it does sum up what we need to do pretty well.

In addition to endorsing a plan for our future that was created by grass root Republicans at REBUILDthePARTY.com, Blackwell enhancing that plan with his own by increased and innovative uses of the internet as well as other person to person forums. Primarily, his plan consists of the following 10 points.

  • We must have an RNC Chairman who has credibility with the public and the media in order to articulate our principles, values, and ideas in the absence of a Republican President, Speaker, and Majority Leader.
  • We must have a leader who understands that the Republican Party’s conservative principles and values are both fundamentally correct and in line with the belief systems of the American electorate.
  • We must be able to translate our principles and values into ideas with 21st Century solutions that make sense to a family sitting around the dinner table.
  • We must inspire a new generation of conservatives into our party by drawing contrasts with Democrats regarding these principles, values, and ideas.
  • We must invest heavily in strong state and local party organizations so that our party has the capacity to organize the electorate and recruit new volunteers and donors. This includes providing seed money to party organizations that lack startup resources and providing speakers to all state party organizations.
  • We must have the technological infrastructure in place to harness the grassroots energy that will be created when the public turns against the liberal democrats in Washington.
  • We must have regional strategies and specific plans for each region and state. We must invest resources in redeveloping our party organizations in the Northeast, never take the South for granted, win over the Reagan Democrats in the Midwest, and compete for Hispanic and Asian-American votes in the West.
  • We must make a serious effort to be competitive with African Americans and other minorities across the country. 
  • We must take a stand against corruption, Republican or Democrat. We can no longer be critical of Democrats while turning a blind eye to scandals and corruption amongst our own.
  • The 2010 midterm elections and the resulting battles over redistricting will shape the future of both political parties. We must “win” the redistricting

Each and every point is not only valid but essential to success. But knowing that these are things we must do is not enough. Knowing how to implement them through an election is important and as a highly successful, former secretary of State, Ken Blackwell knows just how to do that.

 His experience as a Secretary State and chief arbitrator in state elections is invaluable to our future.

So when all is said and done, my support goes to Ken Blackwell.

I believe he is the man best suited for the job of bringing Republicans back with a vengeance and a “Conservative Resurgence”.

For the details of Blackwells plan go to:


Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics