John McCain raised an unsurprisingly (to most of us) low figure of $11.2 million in the 2nd Quarter of 2007. There are reports of malaise, discontent, impending layoffs, and overall bleak hopes for the McCain in '08 camp. With only $2 million in cash-on-hand, and plummeting poll numbers, many believe that McCain's sinking ship will cause many of his supporters to jump ship (and guess who benefits...I'll give you two guesses, both will probably be right, but one benefits more than the other).
Anyway, despite all of this...McCain still out-raised John Edwards, the liberal netroots golden child, by $2.2 million. However, the Edwards camp thinks that things are going their way...despite the fact that riding free publicity (courtesy of Ann Coulter) hasn't earned them but a few extra pennies in the grand scheme of things, if anything at all.
According to Real Clear Politics, Edwards is polling behind both front-runners and Al Gore...and Gore has all but completely ruled out a possible presidential bid. That sunny optimism will lead to an eventual harsh reality for Johnny Boy.
It really seems like both the GOP and Dem races are turning into 2-way horse races on either side. Clinton/Obama on one side, Guiliani/Thompson on the other. It seems both Edwards and Mitt Romney have slipped into bronze-medal locks at the moment. However, the only sure thing this early in a presidential primary race is that there are no sure things.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Returning The Salvo
Lowell over at RK asking "what part of "illegal" don't Republicans understand?" His post was in reference to the Scooter Libby's sentence being commuted by President Bush. He then quotes Rudy Guiliani and Fred Thompson, both were in favor of this decision. Later, Lowell quotes Clinton/Edwards/Obama, who were against this act by President Bush.
However, considering Democrats have a long history of failing to recognize what "illegal" is, I don't see where Lowell (or any Dem) have much room to take the "enforce the law" stance on this issue.
Not only that, but Libby isn't the man that should serve jail time...Richard Armitage (the source of the leak) is who should've gotten serious jail time. Even the jury believed that Libby was simply the "fall guy". Patrick Fitzgerald, who prosecuted the case, went after Libby even though he KNEW when he brought the case against Libby that Armitage was the leak.
As for the Dems/liberals supposedly knowing what "illegal" is.
- Where were the Democratic presidential candidates to loudly denounce the blatant acceptance of bribes by Rep. William Jefferson. They simply sat on their hands and said nothing. Even when he was indicted on 16 counts on various charges, which included racketeering, soliciting bribes, wire fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice, and others...none of the presidential candidates said much of anything. Even the Democrats in the House of Representatives denounced this...where was Hillary Clinton and John Edwards then?
- Apparently, the majority of Democrats in the Senate don't know the meaning of the word "illegal"...see the failed immigration bill for further reference.
- Harry Reid's connections with Jack Abramoff. While the Dems went after every Republican possible, they never challenged Reid, even though there was evidence that Abramoff's money was funneled through lobbying partners in exchange for favorable results for Indian gaming casinos by Reid. Since Abramoff didn't give the money directly, the connection was dismissed.
- Bill Clinton's perjury charges. Despite the fact that the liberals made this about Clinton's sexual indiscretions...the fact is that Clinton lied under oath, and Democrats refused to believe it, even though the House of Representatives believed Clinton was guilty.
- "Pardongate" - Bearing Drift blogs about it here.
- The Libs weren't up in arms over the 1996 Campaign Finance Scandal, either. They had no problem with China attempting to influence the 1996 elections, because the Chinese money was in their favor, and the Clinton Administration had no problem funneling that money into the coffers of many Democratic candidates...possibly including Clinton's own warchest.
Shall I go on? There are a lot more scandals I could bring up where Dems forgot the meaning of "illegal".
However, considering Democrats have a long history of failing to recognize what "illegal" is, I don't see where Lowell (or any Dem) have much room to take the "enforce the law" stance on this issue.
Not only that, but Libby isn't the man that should serve jail time...Richard Armitage (the source of the leak) is who should've gotten serious jail time. Even the jury believed that Libby was simply the "fall guy". Patrick Fitzgerald, who prosecuted the case, went after Libby even though he KNEW when he brought the case against Libby that Armitage was the leak.
As for the Dems/liberals supposedly knowing what "illegal" is.
- Where were the Democratic presidential candidates to loudly denounce the blatant acceptance of bribes by Rep. William Jefferson. They simply sat on their hands and said nothing. Even when he was indicted on 16 counts on various charges, which included racketeering, soliciting bribes, wire fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice, and others...none of the presidential candidates said much of anything. Even the Democrats in the House of Representatives denounced this...where was Hillary Clinton and John Edwards then?
- Apparently, the majority of Democrats in the Senate don't know the meaning of the word "illegal"...see the failed immigration bill for further reference.
- Harry Reid's connections with Jack Abramoff. While the Dems went after every Republican possible, they never challenged Reid, even though there was evidence that Abramoff's money was funneled through lobbying partners in exchange for favorable results for Indian gaming casinos by Reid. Since Abramoff didn't give the money directly, the connection was dismissed.
- Bill Clinton's perjury charges. Despite the fact that the liberals made this about Clinton's sexual indiscretions...the fact is that Clinton lied under oath, and Democrats refused to believe it, even though the House of Representatives believed Clinton was guilty.
- "Pardongate" - Bearing Drift blogs about it here.
- The Libs weren't up in arms over the 1996 Campaign Finance Scandal, either. They had no problem with China attempting to influence the 1996 elections, because the Chinese money was in their favor, and the Clinton Administration had no problem funneling that money into the coffers of many Democratic candidates...possibly including Clinton's own warchest.
Shall I go on? There are a lot more scandals I could bring up where Dems forgot the meaning of "illegal".
Monday, July 2, 2007
15th House District Surprise
At least, it's a surprise to me, as I hadn't heard anything about this until today. Apparently, incumbent C. Todd Gilbert has a challenger in the 15th House of Delegates district in November. The challenger is an Independent named Jack Proctor. He currently does not have a website of any kind up and running, and neither does Gilbert (he only has the official General Assembly website at this time).
However, I believe that Gilbert has done an excellent job representing my home district, and he continues to have the endorsement of The Podium.
However, I believe that Gilbert has done an excellent job representing my home district, and he continues to have the endorsement of The Podium.
Coming to a Broadband Connection Near You...
...Now At The Podium!
Not surprising, I try to keep it clean around here. I'd like to think that my attempts to run a decent and mostly-clean blog are respected by those who read my work.
Not surprising, I try to keep it clean around here. I'd like to think that my attempts to run a decent and mostly-clean blog are respected by those who read my work.
More Thoughts on the "Civil Remedial Fees"
I've blogged about these recently-enacted penalties previously, and I do hold the same opinion that I held previously. While I feel that the fees are tremendously high (especially for first-time offenders), I do believe that these fees are a good alternative to simple tax-raising to fund transportation projects in Virginia.
An editorial in The Washington Times blasted these new fees. I agree that the fees are WAAAAY too high, but this paragraph here is where I have a problem with those protesting this bill.:
"But $1,050 for driving 20 mph over the speed limit is predatory, tax-and-spend government at its worst. For families in the middle or at the bottom of the economic ladder, this reaches 4 percent and 5 percent of annual take-home income. Government is supposed to serve the people, not fine and tax them toward the poor house for what amounts to ordinary behavior."
Yes, that is too much for a "first offense" under the new rules. However, breaking a law that is posted every couple of miles should not be considered "ordinary behavior". The speed limit on I-81 is 65 mph...I keep myself between 67-70 to keep up with the flow of traffic, but I never go over 72. I've gotten a couple of tickets in my lifetime (including a bogus "reckless driving-speeding" charge, but that's another story)...because of the repercussions from the tickets I've received, I've learned my lesson.
While Republicans are being blasted for the creation and passage of this bill (credit to Dave Albo and Tom Rust), look at the 15 that voted against the bill. Watkins Abbitt Jr., Kathy Byron, Ben Cline, Mark Cole, Jeff Frederick, Tom Gear, C. Todd Gilbert, Johnny Joannou, Joseph Johnson, Dwight Jones, Robert Marshall, Ken Melvin, Melanie Rapp, Jack Reid, Lionell Spruill.
60% of that is list is GOP Red. That's 9 Republicans, 5 Democrats, and 1 Independent that voted against this bill. 1 of those Dems is considered to be a DINO by most bloggers.
Let's do a little math: the Virginia House of Delegates is currently comprised of 57 Republicans, 40 Democrats, and 3 Independents. That means that nearly 16% of Republicans, 33% of Independents, and 12.5% of Democrats voted against this bill. The lowest percentage of dissent came from the Democrats on this one.
However, I do believe that there is plenty of "guilt by association" to go around for both parties, so for some bloggers to irresponsibly place this bill squarely on the shoulders of the GOP (see an example here) without taking into account who actually voted for the bill is somewhat erroneous, and fairly irresponsible, on their part.
I will give NLS credit for calling out many of the Dems who supported this bill...although, he pretty much labels them DINO's as well.
Until this law is revisited next year (as some in the HOD have hinted at), my advice to Virginia drivers is simple...DRIVE SLOWER AND BE CAREFUL!!! That should be the short-term solution for Virginia drivers until these fees are lowered to more acceptable levels.
An editorial in The Washington Times blasted these new fees. I agree that the fees are WAAAAY too high, but this paragraph here is where I have a problem with those protesting this bill.:
"But $1,050 for driving 20 mph over the speed limit is predatory, tax-and-spend government at its worst. For families in the middle or at the bottom of the economic ladder, this reaches 4 percent and 5 percent of annual take-home income. Government is supposed to serve the people, not fine and tax them toward the poor house for what amounts to ordinary behavior."
Yes, that is too much for a "first offense" under the new rules. However, breaking a law that is posted every couple of miles should not be considered "ordinary behavior". The speed limit on I-81 is 65 mph...I keep myself between 67-70 to keep up with the flow of traffic, but I never go over 72. I've gotten a couple of tickets in my lifetime (including a bogus "reckless driving-speeding" charge, but that's another story)...because of the repercussions from the tickets I've received, I've learned my lesson.
While Republicans are being blasted for the creation and passage of this bill (credit to Dave Albo and Tom Rust), look at the 15 that voted against the bill. Watkins Abbitt Jr., Kathy Byron, Ben Cline, Mark Cole, Jeff Frederick, Tom Gear, C. Todd Gilbert, Johnny Joannou, Joseph Johnson, Dwight Jones, Robert Marshall, Ken Melvin, Melanie Rapp, Jack Reid, Lionell Spruill.
60% of that is list is GOP Red. That's 9 Republicans, 5 Democrats, and 1 Independent that voted against this bill. 1 of those Dems is considered to be a DINO by most bloggers.
Let's do a little math: the Virginia House of Delegates is currently comprised of 57 Republicans, 40 Democrats, and 3 Independents. That means that nearly 16% of Republicans, 33% of Independents, and 12.5% of Democrats voted against this bill. The lowest percentage of dissent came from the Democrats on this one.
However, I do believe that there is plenty of "guilt by association" to go around for both parties, so for some bloggers to irresponsibly place this bill squarely on the shoulders of the GOP (see an example here) without taking into account who actually voted for the bill is somewhat erroneous, and fairly irresponsible, on their part.
I will give NLS credit for calling out many of the Dems who supported this bill...although, he pretty much labels them DINO's as well.
Until this law is revisited next year (as some in the HOD have hinted at), my advice to Virginia drivers is simple...DRIVE SLOWER AND BE CAREFUL!!! That should be the short-term solution for Virginia drivers until these fees are lowered to more acceptable levels.
McCain = Out?
That's what the "well-informed" rumor mill is saying, according to Mark Steyn at the National Review Online.
"I've had a couple of ostensibly well-informed e-mails suggesting that John McCain will quit the race in the next few days. He's supposed to be in Iraq this week, and presumably, whether he does call it quits or decides to press on, the second-quarter fundraising numbers are somewhere between bad and disastrous."
I'd imagine his fundraising numbers had to have been pretty bad, given he was one of the original proponents of the immigration bill that pretty much alienated him from the conservative base of the GOP, and thus alienated him from fundraising money. Combine that with the defection of many McCain supporters to Fred Thompson, and it's no wonder the outlook for McCain's fundraising numbers is bleak.
"I've had a couple of ostensibly well-informed e-mails suggesting that John McCain will quit the race in the next few days. He's supposed to be in Iraq this week, and presumably, whether he does call it quits or decides to press on, the second-quarter fundraising numbers are somewhere between bad and disastrous."
I'd imagine his fundraising numbers had to have been pretty bad, given he was one of the original proponents of the immigration bill that pretty much alienated him from the conservative base of the GOP, and thus alienated him from fundraising money. Combine that with the defection of many McCain supporters to Fred Thompson, and it's no wonder the outlook for McCain's fundraising numbers is bleak.
Weekly Podium: "Don't Warm Up Yet, Fat Lady"
(Cross-posted at The New Dominion)
With the various tension-filled primaries in the state of Virginia, the GOP split over the immigration bill, and the growing discontent among conservatives with President Bush, one could see truth in the predictions from many pro-Democrat bloggers and columnists that the death of the Republican Party is all but assured at this point.
However, is it time to cue the fat lady on the GOP opera? I wouldn’t believe that just yet.
Wasn’t the same optimism about the Democratic Party’s future felt after the narrow election of Jimmy Carter in 1976? Wasn’t the same also felt when Bill Clinton was elected in 1992? Wasn’t conservatism on its way out after the Watergate scandal and the early ’90s recession?
Indeed, it was. Liberals had a bright and sunny optimism about their major party’s chances to implement a more liberal/socialist agenda (depending on how leftist they were). Both times, the White House and Capitol Hill were under Democrat control. However, both times, the GOP rallied to regain power within four years.
This is not to say that the immediate future of the GOP is entirely hopeful. The party certainly has many discontent members to answer to.
However, as I opined in the past, the Republican Party has shown that they operate best when in certain situations. The GOP functions well when they control either the legislative or executive branch of federal government - but during the six years of controlling both, they ended up dropping the ball. Some of that came from a departure from the basis of conservatism (smaller government, focus on national security and the economy), some of that came from a bit of overzealousness on the part of many party leaders.
A small revolution within the party could be a good thing for the GOP. In fact, it’s already begun. The most recent Rasmussen Reports polls show that the number of people that identify themselves as Republicans has increased notably within the past month, to 32 percent (which is a full percentage point higher). Conservatives are already beginning to look forward to find a leader that more closely represents their interests for 2008 - instead of simply going along with the current figurehead of the party, President Bush.
Another notable statistic from that poll is the fact that Republicans polled higher than Democrats when those polled were asked “Who do you trust more on immigration?” among unaffiliated voters. The GOP was, not too long ago, trusted less than the Dems on every issue asked. Now, they’ve gained more trust than their major party counterparts on the issues of national security and immigration among unaffiliated voters.
Throw in the fact that the Democrat-controlled Congress has lost 15 to 20 points of support, according to Real Clear Politics, and it seems that most of the gains the Democrats have made amongst the American public has begun to fritter away.
While the Republicans crowed about a “permanent majority” in the early part of the decade, I don’t think many of them really believed that this would lead to the eventual demise of the Democratic Party. Most conservatives understand the need for a competing party, and (sometimes grudgingly) accept their existence and their positive contributions to our society as a whole.
However, the solid-liberal and socialist wings of the Democratic Party would love nothing more than to see the demise of the opposing major party, and growing numbers of these parts of the party are making these feelings known. Socialism, in most cases, requires a one-party system to function within the halls of power. What the Democrats may not realize is that, while the momentum swung away from the GOP on a national level in 2006, the global movement in the western world has been mostly swinging towards a more Republican-friendly climate.
Proof of this can be found in the recent elections in Europe, among other locations across the globe. In Germany, the election of Angela Merkel as chancellor and the plurality won by Merkel’s moderate-right CDU in 2005 was a change from the socialist SPD, headed by former chancellor (and American critic) Gerhard Schroeder. More recently, the election of Nicolas Sarkozy to the French presidency and his own UMP party’s ascent to control in the French parliament has also led to the initiation of anti-socialist reforms in government and society in France.
The consecutive elections of Vincente Fox and Felipe Calderon in Mexico, the deradicalization of the Worker‘s Party and election (and re-election) of the centrist Lula in Brazil, and the backlash against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela also show a movement away from hard-left politics in Central and South America.
What could possibly become the biggest threat to the aspirations of the Democratic Party could be their current frontrunner for the presidential nomination. Hillary Clinton probably has more global name recognition than any of the candidates from either party. Her last name evokes memories of “happy times” for many Democrats (despite the numerous scandals that are also associated with the name). She currently holds an average lead of 14 points over Barack Obama in the major polls, according to Real Clear Politics. With the Republican Party going through some turmoil, and her solid-frontrunner status, one would think that Clinton should have this in the bag.
However, Clinton also holds some of the highest “unfavorable” ratings amongst all major party candidates, as well. In his June 21st column the director of the UVa. Center of Politics, Dr. Larry Sabato, spoke about what Clinton’s possible election as the 44th U.S. president could mean.
In reference to the partisanship that would ensue if Clinton won, Sabato stated, “Democrats would have to live with the consequences. There is simply no question that Senator Clinton would be the third deeply polarizing President in a row, following her husband’s divisive and partially wasted tenure and George W. Bush’s deeply disappointing turn at bat. We bet that she would have a short honeymoon and would be unable to convince her millions of critics and detractors that she had changed - or was different than they long ago concluded she was. At a time when the nation could use a unifier and a healer - to the extent that any President can perform those roles - partisan warfare would be at fever pitch from Day One.”
Sabato later goes on to speculate about the repercussions of a Clinton win when he predicted: “The inevitable controversies of the Presidency would erode her shaky support among swing voters faster than is usually the case. The midterm election of 2010 may not be the fiasco for Democrats that 1994 was - there were few historical parallels for Bill Clinton’s electoral disaster in his first term-yet the GOP would almost certainly make a good start on the comeback trail for control of Congress, governorships, and the state legislatures (in the all-important redistricting election that will determine much of the legislative line-drawing for a full decade). Granted, it is virtually impossible to get partisans to think about their long-term interests, but in this respect, Democrats would probably pay a sizeable price throughout the 2010s for a Clinton victory in 2008.”
I will be honest when I say that I doubt that the GOP can regain full control of Congress in 2008. There aren’t enough favorable Senate races in the Republican Party’s favor at this time. The House of Representatives would require a reversal of 2006 to swing back into GOP hands. However, there are many factors that show that the Republican Party still has plenty of life left in it.
It would be wise to tell the fat lady to sit down, because the GOP opera is not about to end just yet. In fact, I think the appropriate music for the Republican Party would be Daughtry’s recent chart-topper, “It’s Not Over.”
With the various tension-filled primaries in the state of Virginia, the GOP split over the immigration bill, and the growing discontent among conservatives with President Bush, one could see truth in the predictions from many pro-Democrat bloggers and columnists that the death of the Republican Party is all but assured at this point.
However, is it time to cue the fat lady on the GOP opera? I wouldn’t believe that just yet.
Wasn’t the same optimism about the Democratic Party’s future felt after the narrow election of Jimmy Carter in 1976? Wasn’t the same also felt when Bill Clinton was elected in 1992? Wasn’t conservatism on its way out after the Watergate scandal and the early ’90s recession?
Indeed, it was. Liberals had a bright and sunny optimism about their major party’s chances to implement a more liberal/socialist agenda (depending on how leftist they were). Both times, the White House and Capitol Hill were under Democrat control. However, both times, the GOP rallied to regain power within four years.
This is not to say that the immediate future of the GOP is entirely hopeful. The party certainly has many discontent members to answer to.
However, as I opined in the past, the Republican Party has shown that they operate best when in certain situations. The GOP functions well when they control either the legislative or executive branch of federal government - but during the six years of controlling both, they ended up dropping the ball. Some of that came from a departure from the basis of conservatism (smaller government, focus on national security and the economy), some of that came from a bit of overzealousness on the part of many party leaders.
A small revolution within the party could be a good thing for the GOP. In fact, it’s already begun. The most recent Rasmussen Reports polls show that the number of people that identify themselves as Republicans has increased notably within the past month, to 32 percent (which is a full percentage point higher). Conservatives are already beginning to look forward to find a leader that more closely represents their interests for 2008 - instead of simply going along with the current figurehead of the party, President Bush.
Another notable statistic from that poll is the fact that Republicans polled higher than Democrats when those polled were asked “Who do you trust more on immigration?” among unaffiliated voters. The GOP was, not too long ago, trusted less than the Dems on every issue asked. Now, they’ve gained more trust than their major party counterparts on the issues of national security and immigration among unaffiliated voters.
Throw in the fact that the Democrat-controlled Congress has lost 15 to 20 points of support, according to Real Clear Politics, and it seems that most of the gains the Democrats have made amongst the American public has begun to fritter away.
While the Republicans crowed about a “permanent majority” in the early part of the decade, I don’t think many of them really believed that this would lead to the eventual demise of the Democratic Party. Most conservatives understand the need for a competing party, and (sometimes grudgingly) accept their existence and their positive contributions to our society as a whole.
However, the solid-liberal and socialist wings of the Democratic Party would love nothing more than to see the demise of the opposing major party, and growing numbers of these parts of the party are making these feelings known. Socialism, in most cases, requires a one-party system to function within the halls of power. What the Democrats may not realize is that, while the momentum swung away from the GOP on a national level in 2006, the global movement in the western world has been mostly swinging towards a more Republican-friendly climate.
Proof of this can be found in the recent elections in Europe, among other locations across the globe. In Germany, the election of Angela Merkel as chancellor and the plurality won by Merkel’s moderate-right CDU in 2005 was a change from the socialist SPD, headed by former chancellor (and American critic) Gerhard Schroeder. More recently, the election of Nicolas Sarkozy to the French presidency and his own UMP party’s ascent to control in the French parliament has also led to the initiation of anti-socialist reforms in government and society in France.
The consecutive elections of Vincente Fox and Felipe Calderon in Mexico, the deradicalization of the Worker‘s Party and election (and re-election) of the centrist Lula in Brazil, and the backlash against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela also show a movement away from hard-left politics in Central and South America.
What could possibly become the biggest threat to the aspirations of the Democratic Party could be their current frontrunner for the presidential nomination. Hillary Clinton probably has more global name recognition than any of the candidates from either party. Her last name evokes memories of “happy times” for many Democrats (despite the numerous scandals that are also associated with the name). She currently holds an average lead of 14 points over Barack Obama in the major polls, according to Real Clear Politics. With the Republican Party going through some turmoil, and her solid-frontrunner status, one would think that Clinton should have this in the bag.
However, Clinton also holds some of the highest “unfavorable” ratings amongst all major party candidates, as well. In his June 21st column the director of the UVa. Center of Politics, Dr. Larry Sabato, spoke about what Clinton’s possible election as the 44th U.S. president could mean.
In reference to the partisanship that would ensue if Clinton won, Sabato stated, “Democrats would have to live with the consequences. There is simply no question that Senator Clinton would be the third deeply polarizing President in a row, following her husband’s divisive and partially wasted tenure and George W. Bush’s deeply disappointing turn at bat. We bet that she would have a short honeymoon and would be unable to convince her millions of critics and detractors that she had changed - or was different than they long ago concluded she was. At a time when the nation could use a unifier and a healer - to the extent that any President can perform those roles - partisan warfare would be at fever pitch from Day One.”
Sabato later goes on to speculate about the repercussions of a Clinton win when he predicted: “The inevitable controversies of the Presidency would erode her shaky support among swing voters faster than is usually the case. The midterm election of 2010 may not be the fiasco for Democrats that 1994 was - there were few historical parallels for Bill Clinton’s electoral disaster in his first term-yet the GOP would almost certainly make a good start on the comeback trail for control of Congress, governorships, and the state legislatures (in the all-important redistricting election that will determine much of the legislative line-drawing for a full decade). Granted, it is virtually impossible to get partisans to think about their long-term interests, but in this respect, Democrats would probably pay a sizeable price throughout the 2010s for a Clinton victory in 2008.”
I will be honest when I say that I doubt that the GOP can regain full control of Congress in 2008. There aren’t enough favorable Senate races in the Republican Party’s favor at this time. The House of Representatives would require a reversal of 2006 to swing back into GOP hands. However, there are many factors that show that the Republican Party still has plenty of life left in it.
It would be wise to tell the fat lady to sit down, because the GOP opera is not about to end just yet. In fact, I think the appropriate music for the Republican Party would be Daughtry’s recent chart-topper, “It’s Not Over.”
Voter Registration Issues - Link to Check Your Status
Last week, I blogged about issues with the voter registration in Virginia, and that problems with the software and information updates caused some registration information to be entered incorrectly, and that up to one-quarter of all Virginians could've been affected by this.
Now, you can check your registration status here. A big h/t to Jim Patrick for this link.
Now, you can check your registration status here. A big h/t to Jim Patrick for this link.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
