• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Monthly Archives: May 2017

He never got out of junior high school…

31 Wednesday May 2017

Posted by Michael Bersin in social media

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Russia, social media, Twitter

Donald Trump’s (r) most pressing concern today, via Twitter:

Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump
Crooked Hillary Clinton now blames everybody but herself, refuses to say she was a terrible candidate. Hits Facebook & even Dems & DNC.
7:40 PM – 31 May 2017

One of the replies:

Hillary Clinton‏ @HillaryClinton
People in covfefe houses shouldn’t throw covfefe.
[….]
8:30 PM – 31 May 2017

She has a point.

Campaign Finance: fighting right to get paid less

31 Wednesday May 2017

Posted by Michael Bersin in campaign finance

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

campaign finance, initiative, missouri, Missouri Ethics Commission, organized labor, right to get paid less, Right to work

Yesterday at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C171127 05/30/2017 We Are Missouri Preserve Middle Class America, Inc 4501 Emanuel Cleaver II Blvd Kansas City MO 64130 5/30/2017 $75,000.00

[emphasis added]

For the folks opposed to the anti-worker millionaire supported referendum.

They’re going to need to raise a lot more money.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: working people (May 23, 2017)

America in 2017

30 Tuesday May 2017

Posted by Michael Bersin in Resist, social media

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

#resist, Fascism, social media, Twitter

It’s a cesspool.

From a game show host:

Chuck Woolery‏ @chuckwoolery
Not to stir the pot but, #BernieSanders is a #Jew and a #Communist. Am I incorrect or does this make me an antisemite as well? Another Fact.
10:49 AM – 30 May 2017

A true believer.

One of many responses:

Ellen Barkin‏ @EllenBarkin
What makes you an anti-semite is not your ability to identify Jews but rather your need to.
[….]
12:47 PM – 30 May 2017

#resist

Ann Wagner dances on what she hopes is Obamacare’s grave – with two left feet showing

30 Tuesday May 2017

Posted by willykay in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

AHCA, Ann Wagner, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Obamacare, Trumpcare

Maybe it’s just me, but Ann Wagner (R-2) seems a bit defensive about her “full-throated” support of the latest House health care abomination, the American Health Care Act (AHCA). In the latest, mostly anodyne, installment of Rep. Ann Wagner’s regular constituent email newsletter, she indulged in a little victory dance on what she evidently hopes will be one more shovelful of dirt on the grave of Obamacare:

Last week, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City announced that it is leaving the Obamacare exchange, leaving approximately 30,000 Missourians without health insurance. It is unacceptable that 25 counties will have no health insurance option next year. Additionally, the Department of Health and Human Services released a report showing that because of Obamacare, monthly insurance premiums for Missouri families have skyrocketed 145% since 2013.

Obamacare has failed Missouri families, and politicians who continue to defend this broken system are ignoring their needs. Washington created this nightmare, and the solution is not more government health insurance from Washington, D.C. The answer is to make the American Health Care Act law and give Missouri families—not Washington bureaucrats—freedom and control over their own healthcare decisions.

You can quibble with her figures. Other sources say that only 19,000 people in Missouri stand to lose BCBS coverage.  – what’s a little GOP number fudging amount to in the Trump era after all – but Wagner’s right about the effect of insurers leaving the market. The situation for Obamacare isn’t good. But you already knew that. There are, however, a couple of points she and fellow GOP hustlers, such as Senator Roy Blunt, have neglected to mention.

  1. President Trump and Ann Wagner’s Republican Congress are actively trying to “blow up” the Obamacare exchanges. Republicans have opposed, and Trump, for his part,  refuses to commit to either ending or continuing the cost-sharing reductions (CSRs) that subsidize lower-income people who purchase insurance on the exchanges. In response, insurers have explicitly stated that, because of the resulting uncertainty about risk levels they will likely be raising premiums or, as in the case of BCBS,  leaving the exchanges altogether. Wagner has some chutzpah talking about the collapse of Obamacare when, as WaPos Greg Sargent observes:

… This whole dynamic shows that one of the leading GOP health care talking points is also complete nonsense. Paul Ryan loves to say that Republicans are performing a “rescue mission” by stepping in to save people from the allegedly collapsing ACA by replacing it, and that they don’t want any people to be hurt in the transition. As it is, their “rescue mission” would result in 23 million people losing insurance over 10 years, and in soaring premiums for sick people, with many priced out of the market. But that aside, if their own stated goal is to avoid hurting people during the transition, it’s unclear why they would not fund the CSRs, since the failure to do so is going to hurt untold numbers of them.

2. In The Atlantic Olga Khazan argues that “there is one thing Republicans usually leave out of their indictment of Obamacare, though: Insurers might have been less likely to exit if more states had expanded Medicaid under Obamacare.” The reasons behind this claim are complex and I suggest that if you’re interested, you should read the article which presents persuasive evidence that, as a Kaiser Family Foundation study on the subject asserts “state policy decisions – in particular, on Medicaid expansion and allowing transitional (“grandmothered”) plans to continue for a period of time – have had an effect on the risk pool in the private individual market.” Missouri, of course, was too ideologically blinkered or too spiteful towards President Obama to expand Medicaid. And the sins of the leaders are always visited on the citizens.

Given the dishonest pablum that we receive from elected representatives like Ann Wagner and the rest of the Missouri GOP contingent, somebody has to get the story out about what these heartless liars are up to. They don’t get to harm so many Americans without taking responsibility for what they are doing. In the words of Khazan, “Republicans might live to see the Obamacare “death spiral” they have long been prophesying. But insurance markets don’t just collapse on their own. Decisions by states, Congress, and the Trump administration can—and have—given them a hefty nudge.”

And maybe the day of reckoning will soon be coming for Wagner and her ilk:

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is also running six-second, non-skippable YouTube ads targeting 12 Republicans who voted for the House bill: West Virginia Reps. Alex Mooney and McKinley, Indiana Reps. Todd Rokita and Luke Messer, Missouri Reps. Ann Wagner and Vicky Hartzler, Pennsylvania Reps. Mike Kelly and Lou Barletta, Rep. Pat Tiberi (Ohio), Rep. Evan Jenkins (WV.), Rep. Kevin Cramer (N.D.) and Rep. Fred Upton (Mich.)

Couldn’t happen to better people. After years of trying to buoy up our Missouri Democrats to withstand such ads coming from conservative groups, it’ll be great fun to watch Wagner – and the equally reprehensible Hartzler – take some heat.

About those campaign contribution limits

30 Tuesday May 2017

Posted by Michael Bersin in campaign finance

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

amendment 2, Attorney General, campaign contribution limits, campaign finance, Josh Hawley, missouri

Last November:

State of Missouri – 2016 General Election – November 8, 2016
Official Results
As announced by the Board of State Canvassers on December 12, 2016

Office/Candidate Name Party Votes % of Votes
Constitutional Amendment 2 3238 of 3238 Precincts Reported
YES 1,894,870 69.95%
NO 814,016 30.05%
Total Votes: 2,708,886

Which resulted in this, in the Missouri Constitution:

Article VIII
SUFFRAGE AND ELECTIONS
Section 23
November 14, 2016

Section 23. 1. This section shall be known as the “Missouri Campaign Contribution Reform Initiative.”
2. The people of the state of Missouri hereby find and declare that excessive campaign contributions to political candidates create the potential for corruption and the appearance of corruption; that large campaign contributions made to influence election outcomes allow wealthy individuals, corporations and special interest groups to exercise a disproportionate level of influence over the political process; that the rising costs of campaigning for political office prevent qualified citizens from running for political office; that political contributions from corporations and labor organizations are not necessarily an indication of popular support for the corporation’s or labor organization’s political ideas and can unfairly influence the outcome of Missouri elections; and that the interests of the public are best served by limiting campaign contributions, providing for full and timely disclosure of campaign contributions, and strong enforcement of campaign finance requirements.
3. (1) Except as provided in subdivisions (2), (3) and (4) of this subsection, the amount of contributions made by or accepted from any person other than the candidate in any one election shall not exceed the following:
(a) To elect an individual to the office of governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state treasurer, state auditor, attorney general, office of state senator, office of state representative or any other state or judicial office, two thousand six hundred dollars.
(2) (a) No political party shall accept aggregate contributions from any person that exceed twenty-five thousand dollars per election at the state, county, municipal, district, ward, and township level combined.
(b) No political party shall accept aggregate contributions from any committee that exceed twenty-five thousand dollars per election at the state, county, municipal, district, ward, and township level combined.
[….]

There’s more there. Look it up.

Which prompted this, in federal court:

Free and Fair Election Fund et al v. Missouri Ethics Commission et al (May 5, 2017) [pdf]

Today, from Attorney General Josh Hawley (r):

AG Hawley Announces Amendment 2 Appeal
May 30, 2017, 11:42 AM
Jefferson City, Mo. – Attorney General Joshua Hawley announced today that his office has appealed the federal district court’s judgment in the Amendment 2 case. That judgment invalidates portions of Missouri’s Constitutional Amendment 2 that impose restrictions on political campaign contributions. Amendment 2 was approved by nearly 70 percent of the voters in November 2016.
​“As Attorney General, I have a duty to defend the laws and constitution of the State of Missouri,” Hawley said. “The people of Missouri overwhelmingly voted to place these rules in our constitution, and my office will defend them.”

Interesting.

Stay tuned.

Previously:

Josh Hawley (r) – Attorney General – October 2016 Quarterly Campaign Finance Report (October 17, 2016)

Who we choose to honor shows who we are

28 Sunday May 2017

Posted by willykay in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

civil war, Confederacy, Confederate Monuments, Confederate soldiers, Forest Park, free speech, missouri, Public speech, slavery, St. Louis

When St. Louis’ new mayor, Lyda Krewson, indicated that she will fulfill former Mayor Slay’s promise to remove the statue honoring Confederate soldiers that stands in Forest Park, opposition quickly materialized. Why? According to letters published in the local papers and radio discussions, there are numerous reasons:

Preserving History

Lots of folks think that if Confederate monuments are removed, history will somehow, magically, be erased. Forget about history books, libraries, museums and the thriving scholarly discipline, there are people who think that we only learn history from statues.

But the presence or absence of monuments doesn’t really affect history. After the fall of Baghdad, Iraqis pulled down Saddam Hussein’s statue, but the world still knows all about who he was and what he did. Iraqis weren’t attempting to erase their history, they were making a statement about their values. Removing the Confederate monument in Forest Park constitutes a similar statement that we value respect for others, inclusivity and honesty.

Honesty because most monuments dedicated to Confederate soldiers and luminaries represent a rather special type of history, what we euphemistically call revisionist history. It seeks to paint dark actions in rosy colors. People talk about fake news a lot nowadays, but we’ve been putting fake history in our public places for at least a hundred years.

The inescapable fact is that, no matter how would-be apologists want to slice it, the civil war was fought to preserve the right of light-skinned Europeans to own the bodies and the labor of dark-skinned Africans, who, as a group, were forcibly brought to this country for that purpose. A National Park Service brochure puts it succinctly when it declares that all the other reasons that folks like to trot out – states rights, economic interests, southern “traditions” – were “inextricably bound to the institution of slavery.” Confederate leaders were absolutely clear that they were seceding in order to preserve the right to own African slaves.

In the light of the Confederacy’s ugly goal, consider the plaque affixed to the statue in Forest Park:

To the Memory of the Soldiers and Sailors of the Southern Confederacy.

Who fought to uphold the right declared by the pen of Jefferson and achieved by the sword of Washington. With sublime self sacrifice they battled to preserve the independence of the states which was won from Great Britain, and to perpetuate the constitutional government which was established by the fathers.

Actuated by the purest patriotism they performed deeds of prowess such as thrilled the heart of mankind with admiration. Full in the front of war they stood and displayed a courage so superb that they gave a new and brighter luster to the annals of valor. History contains no chronicle more illustrious than the story of their achievements; and although, worn out by ceaseless conflict and overwhelmed by numbers, they were finally forced to yield, their glory, on brightest pages penned by poets and by sages shall go sounding down the ages.

Makes you want to puke, doesn’t it? Why would anyone want to perpetuate such a metaphorical slap in the face of the African-American citizens who make up the majority of the people living in St. Louis?

The monuments honor the valiant soldiers, not their cause.

The Southern cause was evil. But that’s not the whole story; those who espoused secession were guilty of treason against the United States of America. That they weren’t tried and imprisoned at the end of the war was due to the mercy of the victors. Only very disturbed societies would erect statues to honor the “sublime self sacrifice” of their own traitors.

A variant of the argument states that many Confederate soldiers didn’t own slaves, but fought strictly out of regional or tribal loyalty. Conservatives are fond of telling us that people need to take responsibility for their choices, so why not apply that logic to Confederate soldiers who made the bad choice to take up arms against their country in a war to defend slavery? There may have been stormtroopers in the Nazi army who held no animus against Jews and Gypsies and who fought valiantly, but few Germans would want -or dare – to put up statues to honor them. What Nazi Germany stood for was just too shameful.

Down the slippery path

Many apologists for the Confederate monuments want to present their removal as the first step that will lead us down a slippery path. If we remove Confederate monuments, they wail, will we have to take down monuments to men like Washington and Jefferson or change the names of streets, buildings and cities named to honor them because they too owned slaves?

This argument is absurd. We don’t honor Washington and Jefferson because they stood up for slavery. They were fallible human beings who may have participated in some or even many of the evils of their times, but they also transcended their times in other ways that we consider important to recognize. The only reason, though, that there is a statue to Confederate soldiers in Forest Park is that the men it honors stood against their country to defend human bondage.

Removing Confederate monuments violates Free Speech protections

A group of New Orleans citizens filed suit to stop the removal of four of their Confederate monuments, and among other claims, initially tried to assert that “removal of the monuments violates the plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to free expression, ‘which they exercise by maintaining and preserving the historic character and nature of the city of New Orleans, including their monuments’.” The group ultimately decided not to tie their request for an injunction to free speech issues, which the judge, who ultimately ruled against them, declared to be a wise decision since ” “the removal of monuments is a form of government speech and is exempt from First Amendment scrutiny.”

Why would government speech be exempt from such scrutiny? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the government serves as a speech proxy for all its citizens? Would a good government privilege dishonest and offensive speech by enshrining it permanently in a public venue? Doesn’t good government correct errors in past, public speech acts – in this case by removing the intrinsically offensive statue in Forest Park.

Taking down Confederate monuments reflects a double standard

Some local apologists for the Forest Park monument point to Congressman Lacy Clay’s decision to display in a congressional hallway a student artwork that some found offensive because it portrayed policemen as pigs. If Confederate monuments offend African-Americans, they argue, portrayals of bestial police are just as offensive to police officers, their families and supporters. Why privilege one group over the other? Isn’t that censorship at the very least, and a violation of equal protection rights at worst? The claim to equal protection rights, by the way, was also made by the groups that brought suit in New Orleans and it’s worth noting that the judge didn’t agree that those rights had been violated.

In the case of Rep. Clay’s painting, the analogy is false because the two cases are not parallel. The Confederate monuments are, by the nature of their placement, meant to be public art. Even though it was temporarily displayed in a public place, the painting that Rep. Clay chose to display belongs to the private art sphere. It was not purchased by or donated to the government permanently, and was part of a group display reflecting diverse content. It did not make a public, but rather a private statement on the part of the artist alone, a statement that may or may not be offensive but is in no way, unlike the statue in Forest Park, intrinsically official public speech. The level of offense we can tolerate in private artistic expression is an entirely other conversation.

So what’s really going on?

I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t have cared if the probably long-dead United Daughters of the Confederacy of Saint Louis, the ladies who donated the statue, had installed it in a private space. Nor do I have a problem if it is moved to another type of venue. However, I don’t want those ladies speaking from their graves, through my government, which is to say, in my name, when it comes to whom I honor in public spaces that belong to me as well as to them. Particularly when, as Emory historian, Carol Adams, has observed:

… the various reasons given for defending Confederate monuments and symbols share a common underlying expectation — that even in an increasingly diverse democracy, power and influence should remain unchanged.

“Beneath all of the talk is a longing for an America that is not only predominantly white but where the resources of a very, very rich nation are funneled almost exclusively toward whites,” said Anderson, author of the 2016 book “White Rage.” “These are who people believe [sic] that they are actually oppressed and disadvantaged whenever anyone else’s voice is heard, their needs addressed and their political will prevails.”

Not every whiner is up in arms to defend white privilege; some are just intellectually lazy, or reluctant to see the world they have learned to rely on change in even  minor ways – perhaps, especially in minor ways. Hell, maybe some people just like the way the statue looks. Nevertheless, when a small readjustment of a public space generates this much noise, there’s almost always something larger and psychologically significant lurking somewhere in the background.

Campaign Finance: You were expecting anything different?

28 Sunday May 2017

Posted by Michael Bersin in campaign finance, Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

148th Legislative District, campaign finance, Holly Rehder, HRCC, missouri, Missouri Ethics Commission

Holly Rehder (r) [2013 file photo].

Today at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C091068 05/28/2017 HOUSE REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE, INC Friends Of Holly Rehder PO Box 1868 Sikeston MO 63801 5/26/2017 $10,000.00

[emphasis added]

And the HRCC will do what they always do.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: More Tamko! (June 3, 2016)

HB 42 and HB 91: right to get paid less rears its ugly head – again (December 1, 2016)

Campaign Finance: right to get a $100,000.00 contribution on the day before limits kick in (December 8, 2016)

Campaign Finance: making the rubble bounce (March 19, 2017)

To the east

27 Saturday May 2017

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

missouri, weather

This evening in west central Missouri:

4th Congressional District open public town hall – with or without Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r)

26 Friday May 2017

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

4th Congressional District, Indivisible KC, missouri, town hall, Vicky Hartzler, Warrensburg

Some constituents in Missouri’s 4th Congressional District are apparently tired of waiting for Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) to hold an open public town hall in the district – they’ve scheduled one during the congressional recess for Wednesday, May 31st in Warrensburg from 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the White Rose Pavilion.

Wednesday, May 31 at 7 PM – 8:30 PM
White Rose Pavilion
107 Ming St/PO Box 373, Warrensburg, Missouri 64093

The constituents of MO Congressional District 4 have questions for Representative Hartzler. We would love to interact with her in a town hall setting. She hasn’t scheduled one for this recess, so we scheduled one for her. We have the venue, the voters and the questions. Will Rep. Hartzler join us? Or will we have to rely on her cardboard stand-in?

Interesting.

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): making it easy (April 18, 2017)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): Okay, this is funny. And sad. (May 9, 2017)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): Still not gonna be any open public town halls in the district, are there? (May 24, 2017)

Campaign Finance: today

25 Thursday May 2017

Posted by Michael Bersin in campaign finance, Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

161st Legislative District, campaign finance, Lane Roberts, missouri, Missouri Ethics Commission

Today at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C171146 05/25/2017 Friends of Lane Roberts Lane Roberts 1715 Rex Avenue Apt 211 Joplin MO 64801 retired 5/23/2017 $10,000.00

[emphasis added]

A brand spanking new committee, today:

C171146: Friends Of Lane Roberts
Committee Type: Candidate
Party Affiliation: Republican
1715 Rex Avenue, Apt. 211
Joplin Mo 64801
Established Date: 05/25/2017
[….]
Election History
[….]
Election Outcome Political Office
8/7/2018 Primary Election State Representative District 161 Missouri House of Representatives

[emphasis added]

Bill White (r), the current representative in the district, will be term limited out in 2018.

← Older posts

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007

Categories

  • campaign finance
  • Claire McCaskill
  • Congress
  • Democratic Party News
  • Eric Schmitt
  • Healthcare
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • Jason Smith
  • Josh Hawley
  • Mark Alford
  • media criticism
  • meta
  • Missouri General Assembly
  • Missouri Governor
  • Missouri House
  • Missouri Senate
  • Resist
  • Roy Blunt
  • social media
  • Standing Rock
  • Town Hall
  • Uncategorized
  • US Senate

Meta

  • Log in

Blogroll

  • Balloon Juice
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Digby
  • I Spy With My Little Eye
  • Lawyers, Guns, and Money
  • No More Mister Nice Blog
  • The Great Orange Satan
  • Washington Monthly
  • Yael Abouhalkah

Donate to Show Me Progress via PayPal

Your modest support helps keep the lights on. Click on the button:

Blog Stats

  • 771,805 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.

 

Loading Comments...