Wintery Knight

…integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

George Stephanopolous was a member of the Clinton Global Initiative in 2010 and 2011

White House Senior Advisor George Stephanopolous with President Clinton in the Oval Office

White House Senior Advisor George Stephanopolous with President Clinton in the Oval Office

(Image source: Time Magazine)

The text at the bottom of the April 4, 1994 Time Magazine cover says: “White House Senior Advisor George Stephanopolous with President Clinton in the Oval Office”.

Breitbart News has more news on the ABC News defense of the Clinton Foundation by former Clinton administration top aide George Stephanopolous.

Excerpt:

George Stephanopoulos’ connections to the Clinton Foundation may be more substantial than he has so far admitted.

An archived page of the Clinton Global Initiative website lists George Stephanopoulos as a “notable member” for the years 2010 and 2011. ABC News has confirmed Mr. Stephanopoulos was a member during both years.

Blogger Jeryl Bier first noticed Stephanopoulos’ name on a CGI list of “notable past members.” The site did not specify when each individual listed had been a member. However, the Internet archive shows that Stephanopoulos was listed as a notable member in 2010 and 2011 along with a list of other well-known media members like Matt Lauer and Anderson Cooper.

[…]Breitbart News contacted ABC News and was told that Mr. Stephanopoulos did not pay a membership fee in either 2010 or 2011. According to a spokesperson, he was listed as a member because he moderated a panel for CGI events both of those years.

The Internet archive does not have a cache of the notable CGI members prior to 2010, but according to publicly available sources, Stephanopoulos also participated in CGI events in 2005, in 2006, in 2007 and in 2009. Therefore, it’s possible he was considered a member for every year between 2005-2011, with the possible exception of 2008, when he does not appear to have taken part in any CGI event.

On Wednesday of this week, the Washington Free Beacon discovered that ABC’s Stephanopoulos was listed on the Clinton Foundation website as a donor. WFB reporter Andrew Stiles contacted ABC News to confirm those donations. Rather than respond to the WFB, the spokesperson for ABC News appears to have leaked the story on the donations to Politico.

Politico is a left-wing organization, and they would have spun the story to protect the Clintons and ABC News. It amazes me that anyone looks to the mainstream media for news. Why would you trust people to tell you the truth about Clinton when they donated to the Clinton Foundation, did events for the Clinton Global Initiative, helped to get Bill Clinton elected President as a top aide, then worked in Bill Clinton’s administration as White House Communications Director?

Remember what Stephanopoulos did to Romney during the last Republican primary debate?

The radically leftist New York Times summarizes the clip above:

In 2012 advisers in the Romney campaign actively lobbied to exclude Mr. Stephanopoulos from the primary debates to no avail. Conservatives say their fears were borne out during the ABC News debate in New Hampshire that year. Mr. Stephanopoulos repeatedly asked Mr. Romney if he believed that states could outlaw birth control — a question that the Romney campaign saw as off-point and far afield of the issues that concerned voters. Mr. Stephanopoulos pressed repeatedly, asking six follow-up questions.

That’s right. He asked 7 questions about a topic that as relevant to the campaign as Clinton’s affairs with Monica Lewinsky. He did it in order to smear Republicans.

Related posts

Filed under: News, , , , , , , ,

ABC News anchor who defended Clinton Foundation donated $75,000 to Clinton Foundation

White House Senior Advisor George Stephanopolous with President Clinton in the Oval Office

Text at the bottom: White House Senior Advisor George Stephanopolous with President Clinton in the Oval Office

(Image source: Time Magazine)

The text at the bottom of the April 4, 1994 Time Magazine cover says: “White House Senior Advisor George Stephanopolous with President Clinton in the Oval Office”.

Whenever the story is media bias, the web site to go to is Newsbusters.

First article:

ABC news host George Stephanopoulos admitted Thursday he had donated $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation and did not disclose this conflict of interest to viewers before interviewing the author of a book critical of the foundation’s foreign donors and influence over Hillary Clinton at the State Department.

Stephanopoulos, a former Bill Clinton communications aide, interviewed Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer on the April 26 edition of This Week, where he pushed back against his reporting and Schweizer himself, repeating Democratic attacks that he had a “partisan interest” in disparaging the Clintons.

“They say you used to work for President Bush as a speech writer. You are funded by the Koch brothers,” he said. “How do you respond to that?”

“As you know, the Clinton campaign says you haven’t produced a shred of evidence that there was any official action as secretary that supported the interest of donors,” he asked later. “We’ve done investigative work here at ABC News, found no proof of any kind of direct action. An independent government ethics expert at the Sunlight Foundation Bill Allison wrote this: ‘There’s no smoking gun. No evidence that the changed policy based on donations to the foundation. No smoking gun.’ Is there a smoking gun?”

Stephanopoulos did not point out that the Sunlight Foundation is funded by left-wing billionaire George Soros.

[…]The story came to light when the Free Beacon‘s Andrew Stiles discovered Stephanopoulos’ donation and requested a comment from ABC News. Stephanopoulos then confirmed the donation to Politico and issued an apology for not disclosing it beforehand, and ABC announced it would not take any punitive action against him.

Second article:

Talking to Bloomberg Politics correspondent Joshua Green on Wednesday, Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer said he was “really quite stunned” by the revelation that ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos gave $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Schweizer called it a “massive breach of ethical standards” for the Bill Clinton operative turned journalist.

Referencing a contentious interview with Stephanopoulos for This Week on April 26, Schweizer observed: “He fairly noted my four months working as a speech writer for George W. Bush. But he didn’t disclose this?” In that exchange, Stephanopoulos accused Schweizer of having a “partisan interest” in writing a book critical of the Clintons.

In 2014, Stephanopoulos offered a glowing puff piece on the Clinton Foundation, hailing it as an organization that “brings together world leaders…and celebrities, re-imagining the world and taking action.”

Also on Thursday, Kentucky Senator and Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul told The New York Times that Stephanopoulos should not be permitted to moderate any 2016 debates: “It’s impossible to divorce yourself from that, even if you try. I just think it’s really, really hard because he’s been there, so close to them, that there would be a conflict of interest if he tried to be a moderator of any sort.”

And Rand Paul is getting what he asked for, the former Clinton administration communications director George Stephanopolous will not be moderator of a GOP debate. Honestly, why was he in there in the first place? You might as well pick Satan to moderate a debate on the resurrection of Jesus. I’m really not sure why ABC News would make him their chief anchor, since the man is a diehard Democrat. A top Clinton aide, and White House Communications Director when Clinton was President. Do you know what the White House Communications Director does? He just says whatever he has to to make the President look good.

A fair moderator of GOP debates? Give me a break.

The radically leftist New York Times reminds us what Stephanopolous did in the 2012 presidential debate he moderated:

In 2012 advisers in the Romney campaign actively lobbied to exclude Mr. Stephanopoulos from the primary debates to no avail. Conservatives say their fears were borne out during the ABC News debate in New Hampshire that year. Mr. Stephanopoulos repeatedly asked Mr. Romney if he believed that states could outlaw birth control — a question that the Romney campaign saw as off-point and far afield of the issues that concerned voters. Mr. Stephanopoulos pressed repeatedly, asking six follow-up questions.

That’s right. He asked 7 questions about a topic that as relevant to the campaign as Clinton’s affairs with Monica Lewinsky. He did it in order to smear Republicans.

ABC News is, of course, not punishing him from reporting on a foundation that he donated to.

The original source for this story was the Washington Free Beacon. Credit where due.

Related posts

Filed under: News, , , , , , , ,

Are Latter Day Saints (LDS) doctrines supported by philosophy, science and history?

This post presents evidence against Mormonism/LDS in three main areas. The first is in the area of science. The second is in the area of philosophy. And the third is in the area of history.

The scientific evidence

First, let’s take a look at what the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, believes about the origin of the universe:

“The elements are eternal. That which had a beggining will surely have an end; take a ring, it is without beggining or end – cut it for a beggining place and at the same time you have an ending place.” (“Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith”, p. 205)

“Now, the word create came from the word baurau which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence, we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos – chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existance from the time he had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beggining, and can have no end.”
(“Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith”, p. 395)

A Mormon scholar named Blake Ostler summarizes the Mormon view in a Mormon theological journal:

“In contrast to the self-sufficient and solitary absolute who creates ex nihilo (out of nothing), the Mormon God did not bring into being the ultimate constituents of the cosmos — neither its fundamental matter nor the space/time matrix which defines it. Hence, unlike the Necessary Being of classical theology who alone could not not exist and on which all else is contingent for existence, the personal God of Mormonism confronts uncreated realities which exist of metaphysical necessity. Such realities include inherently self-directing selves (intelligences), primordial elements (mass/energy), the natural laws which structure reality, and moral principles grounded in the intrinsic value of selves and the requirements for growth and happiness.” (Blake Ostler, “The Mormon Concept of God,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 17 (Summer 1984):65-93)

So, Mormons believe in an eternally existing universe, such that matter was never created out of nothing, and will never be destroyed. But this is at odds with modern cosmology.

The Big Bang cosmology is the most widely accepted cosmology of the day. It is based on several lines of evidence, and is broadly compatible with Genesis. It denies the past eternality of the universe. This peer-reviewed paper in an astrophysics journal explains. (full text here)

Excerpt:

The standard Big Bang model thus describes a universe which is not eternal in the past, but which came into being a finite time ago. Moreover,–and this deserves underscoring–the origin it posits is an absolute origin ex nihilo. For not only all matter and energy, but space and time themselves come into being at the initial cosmological singularity. As Barrow and Tipler emphasize, “At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo.

[…]On such a model the universe originates ex nihilo in the sense that at the initial singularity it is true that There is no earlier space-time point or it is false that Something existed prior to the singularity.

Christian cosmology requires such a creation out of nothing, but this is clearly incompatible with what Mormons believe about the universe. The claims about the universe made by the two religions are in disagreement, and we can test empirically to see who is right, using science.

Philosophical problems

Always Have a Reason contrasts two concepts of God in Mormonism: Monarchotheism and Polytheism. It turns out that although Mormonism is actually a polytheistic religion, like Hinduism. In Mormonism, humans can become God and then be God of their own planet. So there are many Gods in Mormonism, not just one.

Excerpt:

[T]he notion that there are innumerable contingent “primal intelligences” is central to this Mormon concept of god (P+M, 201; Beckwith and Parrish, 101). That there is more than one god is attested in the Pearl of Great Price, particularly Abraham 4-5. This Mormon concept has the gods positioned to move “primal intelligences along the path to godhood” (Beckwith and Parrish, 114). Among these gods are other gods which were once humans, including God the Father. Brigham Young wrote, “our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father, and again, He was begotten by a still more ancient Father, and so on…” (Brigham Young, The Seer, 132, quoted in Beckwith and Parrish, 106).

[…]The logic of the Mormon polytheistic concept of God entails that there is an infinite number of gods. To see this, it must be noted that each god him/herself was helped on the path to godhood by another god. There is, therefore, an infinite regress of gods, each aided on his/her path to godhood by a previous god. There is no termination in this series. Now because this entails an actually infinite collection of gods, the Mormon polytheistic concept of deity must deal with all the paradoxes which come with actually existing infinities…

The idea of counting up to an actual infinite number of things by addition (it doesn’t matter what kind of thing it is) is problematic. See here.

More:

Finally, it seems polytheistic Mormonism has a difficulty at its heart–namely the infinite regress of deity.

[…]Each god relies upon a former god, which itself relies upon a former god, forever. Certainly, this is an incoherence at the core of this concept of deity, for it provides no explanation for the existence of the gods, nor does it explain the existence of the universe.

Now let’s see the historical evidence against Mormonism.

The historical evidence

J. Warner Wallace explains how the “Book of Abraham”, a part of the Mormon Scriptures, faces historical difficulties.

The Book of Abraham papyri are not as old as claimed:

Mormon prophets and teachers have always maintained that the papyri that was purchased by Joseph Smith was the actual papyri that was created and written by Abraham. In fact, early believers were told that the papyri were the writings of Abraham.

[…]There is little doubt that the earliest of leaders and witnesses believed and maintained that these papyri were, in fact the very scrolls upon which Abraham and Joseph wrote. These papyri were considered to be the original scrolls until they were later recovered in 1966. After discovering the original papyri, scientists, linguists, archeologists and investigators (both Mormon and non-Mormon) examined them and came to agree that the papyri are far too young to have been written by Abraham. They are approximately 1500 to 2000 years too late, dating from anywhere between 500 B.C. (John A. Wilson, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1968, p. 70.) and 60 A.D. If they papyri had never been discovered, this truth would never have come to light. Today, however, we know the truth, and the truth contradicts the statements of the earliest Mormon leaders and witnesses.

The Book of Abraham papyri do not claim what Joseph Smith said:

In addition to this, the existing papyri simply don’t say anything that would place them in the era related to 2000BC in ancient Egypt. The content of the papyri would at least help verify the dating of the document, even if the content had been transcribed or copied from an earlier document. But the papyri simply tell us about an ancient burial ritual and prayers that are consistent with Egyptian culture in 500BC. Nothing in the papyri hints specifically or exclusively to a time in history in which Abraham would have lived.

So there is a clear difference hear between the Bible and Mormonism, when it comes to historical verification.

Further study

There is a very good podcast featuring J. Warner Wallace that summarizes some other theological problems with Mormonism that I blogged about before. And if you want a nice long PDF to print out and read at lunch (which is what I did with it) you can grab this PDF by Michael Licona, entitled “Behold, I Stand at the Door and Knock“.

Filed under: Polemics, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Media silent on DOJ report that refutes their “hands up, don’t shoot” myth

CNN reporters spread lies about Ferguson

CNN clowns lie about Ferguson “hands up, don’t shoot”

Yesterday, I reported on how the Department of Justice had found officer Darren Wilson innocent, and asserted that the mainstream media that spread lies about him would not correct their lies.

Newsbusters reported on how the mainstream media reported on the DOJ report.

Excerpt:

“Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” has been the rallying cry of Ferguson protesters since officer Darren Wilson fatally shot Michael Brown on a Missouri street last August. Brown, the “gentle giant,” was shot while trying to surrender or de-escalate his encounter with Wilson. It was an article of faith on the left, and the three networks used the phrase 140 times in their coverage of Ferguson.

Now, the DOJ report and Attorney General Eric Holder have admitted that the catch phrase was based on false witness accounts. None of the networks apologized or admitted their own reporting spread that false narrative. Instead, they focused on DOJ’s assertions of racism in the Ferguson police department. 

In a press conference yesterday, AG Holder admitted that a false account of events had mysteriously gained popularity with the public, but he wouldn’t admit the media had some small part in this. “I recognize that the findings in our report may leave some to wonder how the department’s findings can differ so sharply from some of the initial, widely reported accounts of what transpired,” he said, “It remains not only valid – but essential – to question how such a strong alternative version of events was able to take hold so swiftly, and be accepted so readily.” 

Er, it might have something to do with people in the media and government (Holder very much included) being all too eager to believe, or at least cynically parrot that “alternative version.” For example, the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” phrase was mentioned 34 times by NBC, 51 by ABC and 55 by CBS from August 9, 2014 to March 3, 2015.

But only the CBS Evening News, which gave 42 seconds to clearing Wilson, noted that there was “no credible evidence Brown had his hands up attempting to surrender.”

[…]It’s not just the broadcast news that was complicit in spreading false information and adding fuel to the fire in the Ferguson case. Shockingly, a CNN panel even participated in siding with the protesters by hosting their own, “Hands Up” protest after the grand jury found Wilson not guilty of any criminal charges in December.

You can see the CNN panel raising their hands in order to spread the “hands up, don’t shoot” lie in the photo above.

Is media bias real?

From the Washington Examiner, a study of the political contributions made by the mainstream media.

Excerpt:

Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Democratic total of $1,020,816 was given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks, with an average contribution of $880.

By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. The average Republican contribution was $744.

[…]The data on contributions by broadcast network employees was compiled by CRP at the request of The Examiner and included all 2008 contributions by individuals who identified their employer as one of the three networks or subsidiaries. The data does not include contributions by employees of the three networks who did not identify their employer.

The CRP is the organization behind OpenSecrets.org, the web site that for more than a decade has put campaign finance data within reach of anybody with an Internet connection.

President Obama received 710 such contributions worth a total of $461,898, for an average contribution of $651 from the network employees. Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain received only 39 contributions totaling $26,926, for an average donation of $709.

And more from a study done by the radically leftist MSNBC.

Excerpt:

MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

The donors include CNN’s Guy Raz, now covering the Pentagon for NPR, who gave to Kerry the same month he was embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq; New Yorker war correspondent George Packer; a producer for Bill O’Reilly at Fox; MSNBC TV host Joe Scarborough; political writers at Vanity Fair; the editor of The Wall Street Journal’s weekend edition; local TV anchors in Washington, Minneapolis, Memphis and Wichita; the ethics columnist at The New York Times; and even MTV’s former presidential campaign correspondent.

I think that we need to be really careful when we watch the mainstream media news channels. It’s not good to willingly subject ourselves to lies that we find comfortable – that fit within our already-established prejudices. As you can see from the handling of the DOJ report on Ferguson, we should be skeptical of what we hear from the news media.

Filed under: News, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Eric Holder’s DOJ finds officer Darren Wilson innocent in Michael Brown shooting

Ferguson protesters shut down highway

Ferguson protesters shut down highway

Normally, I would not post on this, but I think I must because of the way that the mainstream media and the culture as a whole swallowed a narrative that bashes police officers, and by extension the rule of law, and even the responsibility that criminals bear for their own actions.

Hot Air introduces the Department of Justice’s findings:

The DOJ — Eric Holder’s DOJ — is clear as can be that it thinks Wilson was justified in shooting Michael Brown.

[…][The DOJ report] was a considered argument that not only is Wilson not guilty of a federal civil rights charge, he’s not guilty of a criminal offense of any sort. Had Wilson gone to trial, he could have submitted this as his motion to dismiss and the court might well have torpedoed the indictment before opening arguments.

Hot Air extracts some of the most interesting parts of the report, and I am injecting some photos of “hands-up” Democrats in between the findings.

Page 82:

Wilson’s version is further supported by disinterested eyewitnesses Witness 102, Witness 104. Witness 105. Witness 108. and Witness 109. among others. Those witnesses all agree that Brown ran or charged toward Wilson and that Wilson shot at Brown only as Brown moved toward him. Although some of the witnesses stated that Brown briefly had his hands up or out at about waist-level, none of these witnesses perceived Brown to be attempting to surrender at any point when Wilson fired upon him. To the contrary, several of these witnesses stated that they would have felt threatened by Brown and would have responded in the same way Wilson did. For example. Witness 104 stated that as Wilson ran after Brown yelling “stop, stop. stop.” Brown finally turned around and raised his hands “for a second.” However. Brown then immediately balled his hands into fists and “charged” at Wilson in a “tackle run.” Witness 104 stated that Wilson fired only when Brown moved toward him and that she “would have fired sooner.” Likewise. Witness 105 stated that Brown turned around and put his hands up “for a brief moment.” then refused a command from Wilson to “get down” and instead put his hands “in running position” and maned running toward Wilson. Witness 105 stated that Wilson shot at Brown only when Brown was moving toward him. These witnesses’ accounts are consistent with prior statements they have given, consistent with the forensic and physical evidence, and consistent with each other’s accounts. Accordingly. we conclude that these accounts arc credible.

Democrats:

Democrats say "hands up!"

Democrats say “hands up!”

Page 84:

When the shootings are viewed, as they must be, in light of all the surrounding circumstances and what Wilson knew at the time, as established by the credible physical evidence and eyewitness testimony, it was not unreasonable for Wilson to fire on Brown until he stopped moving forward and was clearly subdued. Although, with hindsight. we know that Brown was not armed with a gun or other weapon, this fact does not render Wilson’s use of deadly force objectively unreasonable. Again. the key question is whether Brown could reasonably have been perceived to pose a deadly threat to Wilson at the time he shot him regardless of whether Brown was armed. Sufficient credible evidence supports Wilson’s claim that he reasonably perceived Brown to be posing a deadly threat. First. Wilson did not know that Brown was not armed at the time he shot him, and had reason to suspect that he might be when Brown reached into the waistband of his pants as he advanced toward Wilson. S

[…]While Brown did not use a gun on Wilson at the SUV, his aggressive actions would have given Wilson reason to at least question whether he might be armed, as would his subsequent forward advance and reach toward his waistband. This is especially so in light of the rapidly-evolving nature of the incident. Wilson did not have time to determine whether Brown had a gun and was not required to risk being shot himself in order to make a more definitive assessment.

Democrats:

Another Democrat says "hands up"

Another Democrat says “hands up”

Here’s a witness who was disqualified:

Witness 101 is a 22-year-old black male who was walking in the middle of Canfield Drive with Brown when they encountered Wilson. Witness 101 made multiple statements to the media immediately following the incident that spawned the popular narrative that Wilson shot Brown execution style as he held up his hands in surrender. These media interviews occurred prior to Witness 101 giving his two statements. First, FBI and SLCPD jointly interviewed Witness 101 on August 13. 2014. in the presence of Witness 101’s mother. Witness 101’s two attorneys, and an individual who explained that he was in charge of Witness 101’s personal security. Witness 101 subsequently testified before the county grand jury.

After pointing out all the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in his testimony, the report concludes:

Witness 101 has a misdemeanor conviction for a crime of dishonesty likely admissible in federal court as impeachment evidence. As described above, material parts of Witness 101’s account are inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence. internally inconsistent from one part of his account to the next, and inconsistent with other credible witness accounts that are corroborated by physical evidence. It is also unclear whether Witness 101 had the ability to accurately perceive the shootings. Witness 101 likely crouched down next to a white Monte Carlo as Wilson chased Brown. The Monte Carlo was facing west with a view of the passenger side of the SUV. Brown ran in the opposite direction that the Monte Carlo was facing. Witness accounts vary as to whether Witness 101 was ducking for cover on the passenger side of the Monte Carlo with his back to the shooting, or whether he fled the scene prior to the final shots being fired. Both Witness 101’s inconsistencies and his ability to perceive what happened, or lack thereof, make his account vulnerable to effective cross-examination and extensive impeachment. Accordingly, after a thorough review of all of the evidence, federal prosecutors determined material portions of Witness 101’s account lack credibility and therefore determined that his account does not support a prosecution of Darren Wilson.

Now, I want you to think about what it meant that the mainstream media in this country, and their allies in the Democrat party, were able to cause riots, vandalism, crime, and all manner of unrest because of a lie. Did you fall for it? Do you know anyone who did? I would like to think that the same people who went rioting will hear about this from their favorite media propagandists, but I don’t they they will. After all, getting to the truth is the last thing the media wanted to do. They won’t cover the correction to their lies. They wanted to cause divisions, and prop up the Democrat party as the savior of colored people.

I recommend that everyone watch this 15-minute TED.com talk with Sharyl Attkisson: (H/T Drew)

For the record, my skin color is about the same as Sheila Jackson Lee, above.

Filed under: News, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Click to see recent visitors

  Visitors Online Now

Page views since 1/30/09

  • 5,151,866 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,817 other followers

Archives

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,817 other followers

%d bloggers like this: