Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report


Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2017)
Internet Articles (2016)
Internet Articles (2015)
Internet Articles (2014)
Internet Articles (2013)
Internet Articles (2012)

Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Order Books






Openings at $75K to $500K+

Pinnaclemicro 3 Million Computer Products

Startlogic Windows Hosting

Adobe  Design Premium¨ CS5

Get Your FREE Coffeemaker Today!

Corel Store

his website first revealed the Obamacare Death Panel on Aug. 30, 2009—a year before the first Senate version of Obamacare, HR 3962, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or its final version, also created by the Senate (which adopted the name of HR 3200). HR3200 was the only House version of Obamacare—Ameriica's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Also created by the Senate as an afterthought was HR 3590 which was fraudulently cited by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV] and then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] as the original House healthcare bill (which, in reality, was HR 3200 that was dead-on-arrival in the Senate on July 31, 2009. (Note: the revisionists have rewritten the history of HR3200, which they now claim failed to make it out of committee in the House. And they rewrote the history of HR3590 by erasing it and substituting it for HR3962 which originated in the Senate.) Since truth, in government, is perception rather than reality, the pundits who wrote the story are sticking to it. HR 3590 which the left claims was the House version of Obamacare, passed the House of Representatives as the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009. It had nothing to do with healthcare. The bill was introduced by Rep. Charlie Rangel [D-NY] on Sept. 17, 2009. It passed the House on a 416-0 vote but died in the Senate as S.1728, introduced by Sen. Clare McCaskell [D-MO].

Because Obamacare was an appropriations bill, Article I, Section 7, paragraph 1 of the Constitution required that it, like all money bills, originate in the House of Representatives. The biggest problem with Obamacare is that HR 3200—which actually did originate in the House—died at the doorstep of the Senate. And since both the 1,900-page HR 3962 and the 2,400-page counterfeit HR 3590 (as a healthcare bill) both originated in the Senate, Obamacare miserably failed the Origination Clause smell test. No part of HR 3590 as a healthcare bill originated in the House of Representatives. For that reason, Obamacare is constitutionally null and void.

(It must be noted that HR 3590 contains some 2,400 pages which means there are about 500 pages in the Obamacare law "on the books" that no one in the House or Senate voted on.) Those pages of "whatever is on them" were added into the legislation by the House and Senate Democrats in joint conference (who excluded all GOP participation in the merging of the House and Senate versions of the bill before it was signed into law). It's likely that what was inserted in joint conference was $160 billion since absolutely not a single Republican was aware that Obamacare contained a $160 billion slush fund to finance the start-up of Obamacare through Medicare if the courts overturned the new healthcare law.

It's also important to remember that Obama sent his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, to control the reconciliation negotiations which suggests, without any evidence to support the accusation, that Emanuel may have masterminded the Obamacare slush fund to the bill—and perhaps the gutting of HR 3590, replacing the veteran's first time home owner tax rebate language with the healthcare language from HR 3962 (which should have been S.3962 or some more appropriate Senate bill number) although I really like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi for the crime. Reid has had some astonishing come from behind election wins—particularly in 2010 when the lights went out for an hour in Clark County. He deserves to go to prison for something. But, on the other hand, I like Rahm Emanuel for it, too; because if you can get Emanuel for it, you get Obama, too.

Gutting the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 and replacing the text of HR 3590 with the text of HR 3962 was not only illegal because it was an effort to defraud the American people who oppose soicalized medicine, it was also unconstitutional because the Obama Administration deliberately and knowingly violated the Origination Clause because that was the only way they could enact Obamacare.

Illegal or not, it's a common practice on both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill. Congressmen and Senators alike habitually use the ploy of gutting defeated bills and substituting the language of another piece of legislation in order to slip earmarks into bills without public scrutiny, or add riders to bills after the deadlines for debate expired. In other words, what Reid and Pelosi did was not lost on any House member since most of them.regularly engaged in the same type of chicanery, but only to skirt parlimentary rules—not violate the Constitution. There is a fear of the "you, too," finger-pointing which has been used most effectively by the Obama Administration to tar and feather those who catch them practicing legislative malfeasance by accusing their accuser of the same thing they're doing—even when they aren't. The far left media aids the political left by ignoring the felonies they commit while making banner headlines out of the misdemeanors of their accusers.

That was Speaker Boehner's problem when HR 3590, a tax credit bill for veterans, became the new House version of HR 3962 as the "origination Obamacare bill." Boehner, like most veteran Congressmen and Senators knew better. But, sadly, most veterans of Capitol Hill have, at one time or another, sidestepped parlimentary rules by resurrecting a dead bill, gutting it and inserting the text of a new rider into it after the final reading of the bill, to make it appear that the new rider was added much earlier in the legislative process. Usually the ploy is used after the bill is "marked up" and is ready to go to the floor for a vote on final passage. (In no instance to my knowledge has anyone prior to HR 3590 substituted the text of a Senate-originated appropriations bill in a non-Article 1, Section 9, paragraph 1 House bill in order to fraudulently make it appear that an appropriations bill that did not originate in the House of Representatives originated in the House of Representatives.)

What Reid and Pelosi did is a serious felony that should carry very serious prison time for all for the Democrats in both the House and Senate who were party to the crime of making HR 3590 look like it was the House version of Obamacare and not the tax credit bill for servicemen and women that it was. Included in the list of culprits is Charlie Rangel [D-NY] who proffered HR3590, Sen. Clare McCaskell [D-MO] who submitted the Senate version of the same bill, S.1728 (which died of inattention); then House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer [D-MD], then House Majority Whip James Clyburn [D-SC],. Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin [D-IL], Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel [D-IL] and, of course, the ringleader, Barack Obama [D-IL].

Also complicit are the co-sponsors of the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009, who should have raised a red flag when their tax credit bill, HR 3590 suddenly became a healthcare bill. They are Ike Skelton [D-MO]. Earl Blumneuer [D-OR]. Ron Kind [Wi], Walter Jones [R-NC], Steve Kagan [D-WI]. Carl Levin [D-MI], Fortney Stark [D-CA], Jim McDermott [D-WA], John Lewis [D-GA]. Richard Neal [D-MA], Jon Tanner [D-TN], Xavier Becerra [D-CA], Lloyd Doggett [D-TX], Earl Pomeroy [D-ND], Mike Thompson [D-CA], John Larsen [D-CT], Bill Pascrell [D-ND], Shelley Berkley [D-NV]. Jospeh Crowley [D-NY], Kendrick Meek [D-FL], Chris Van Hollen [D-MD], Allison Schwartz [D-PA], Artur Davis [D-AL], Danny Davis [D-IL], Bob Etheridge [D-MS], Linda Sanchez [D-CA], Bryan Higgins [D-NY], John Yarmuth [D-KY], and Ginny Brown-Waite [D-FL]. All of these members of Congress swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Twenty-eight Democrats and one Republican. Since all of them were co-sponsors of HR 3590 when it passed in the House as the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 on a vote of 416-to-0, each and everyone of them knew when HR 3590 popped up again as Obamacare that a fraud was being perpetuated on Congress, on the Supreme Court of the United States, on their constituents and more important, on the seniors of the United States who would shortly be targeted for involuntary euthanasia by the United States government denying them critical, lifesaving medical services and procedures but because they have outlived the longevity actuarial charts and are draining the Social Security Trust Fund too fast.

The majority of America's seniors didn't believe the rumors of Death Boards and healthcare rationing because, well, this is America. In America we don't kill grandma and grandpa because they got old and have chronic, costly medical problems, or because they've lived longer than the actuarial charts said they should have lived, and because we're afraid if theylive too long they will take Social Security dollars away from us. Their stubbornly-held faith in the integrity of government was confirmed when nothing was found in the text of either the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or Ameriica's Affordable Health Choices Act that even remotely resembled a death panel which, they were told, was preparing to pull the plug on seniors. That, of course, is because the Death Board was not in Obamacare. The Obama Death Board was enacted a year earlier than Obamacare and was buried in the American Recovery and Reinivestment Act of 2009. That's called planning ahead. The American Recovery and Reinivestment Act contained the poison pill—the arbitrary right of government to deny lifesaving or life-proloning medications and surgical procedures to working class seniors whenever the benefit of keeping grandma and grandpa alive does not outweigh the cost. Specifically targeted will be those who are currently collecting Social Security and who are also on Medicare—the double-dippers—who have outlived the 1934 lifespan actuarial tables and who, the government believes, are now living on someone else's dime.

On August 30, 2009 I wrote an article entitled Meet Obama's Death Board—7 months before Obamacare unconstitutionally became the law on March 23, 2010. If you scroll down to the bottom of that article you will see photos of the 15 members of the Death Board, beginning with Dr. Ezekiel EmanualRahm Emanuel's brother. None of the doctors in the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Research are practicing physicians. They are bureaucrats. All of them have long forgotten the Hippocratic Oath they took when they became physicians. They are DINOS—doctors-in-name-only. This group structured the healthcare rationing guidelines, creating the Independent Payment Advisory Board which, in Section 3007, created the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. This is the office which now denies healthcare procedures to the elderly via a small computer terminal the doctor's assistant carries when the patient who needs care is initially examined. Once you pass age 75, unless you're a politician, a family member of a politician, a Hollywood leftist or some other type of leftist celebrity, or a major political donor (a rich guy), or you own a productive small business and you are not drawing Social Security benefits, you will discover your emergency room visits will entail much longer waits than younger patients; and where a year ago, where every emergency room visit usually resulted an overnight stay, now you can show up in the emergency room bleeding from the rectum, the ER doctor will plug it with a cork and send you home.

When the doctor completes his examination of a post-75 year old patient with three or four blocked arteries, he knows that to save this patient's life, he needs to perform bypass surgery. Or at least, angioplasty. However, the actuarial cost-benefit chart he is referred to in his hand-held computer tells him that, in the case of this patient, the cost outweighs the societal benefit. The patient is ineligible for either surgical procedure. Instead, the National Coordinator will advise the doctor to prescribe a statin to reduce his cholesterol and trigylcerides, and metoprolol succinate to treat his angina and reduce his blood pressure—two drugs the patient likely already takes. Or the National Coordinator, but deny any type of medical assistance because his assessment is that the patient is likely going to die soon anyway, so it will not be cost effective to waste the taxpayer's money.

In that case, the doctor might suggest that the patient increase his 81 mg daily aspirin regime to 325 mg (which will likely make the patient think he's not as bad off as he really is). Or, if the doctor suspects his patient's blockages are severe enough that the patient could drop dead walking from the doctor's office back to his car, the doctor might suggest increasing his aspirin regime to 500 mg daily. And, he might also suggest some 19th century home remedies like tumeric, cayenne pepper, cinnamon, dill, or oregano in capsule form. All of these are available at any health food store. Perhaps Vitamin B-6 or E. And, the cardiologist might even advise him to greatly increase his daily intake of plain water (taking a 12 oz. glass just before bed and another as soon as he rises in the morning). That, of course, it what he would do if the Payment Advisory Board refused to allow the doctor to add least prescribe a prescription blood thinner to prolong the elderly patient's life. Keep in mind, the purpose of denying seniors medicines or medical procedures that will keep them alive is because due to 45 million babyboomers born in the 1940s and 50s, there are, or will soon be more seniors collecting Social Security benefits than there are those paying into the system. Which is why so many doctors today are shutting down their practices and retiring. The Payment Advisory Board is now telling doctors how to treat their patients—or rather, how and when not to treat them. Doctors who break the rules will face penalties that will include large, six figure fines and possible imprisonment and loss of their medical license.

Just before Christmas, 2012 my wife's sister's 85-year old husband went to his gastroenterologist for his injection of Remicade® to ward off the painful side affects of Crohn's Disease. Medicare was paying for the shots, which he received every 6 to 8 weeks. As the doctor administered the injection he said, "In case Medicare has not yet notified you, you will no longer be eligible for Remicade® after the first of the year, advising him that he would be back on the amiosalicylates he took before Medicare approved Remicade®. In February, when he should have had another injection of Remicade®, he received a shot of Asacol™, an aminosalicylate. Within a week, he found himself in the emergency room. He and his wife sat, watching those who came after him being treated before him. After a seven hour wait, his wife's demanded to see a doctor, making enough of a commotion that he got a doctor who promptly gave him a steroid shot and sent him home.

My wife's brother, a very fit 78-year old who recently felt he had to prove to his younger buddies than he could still bench-press 300 lbs, had an appointment with his cardiologist on Feb. 13. When he arrived at the doctor's office, there were no patients—and it appeared the doctor was moving. and was just preparing to depart with the last box of personal belonings when my brother-in-law entered. The cardiologist was shocked. "I have an appointment for three," my brother-in-law said.

"I just closed my practice," the cardiologist said. "I just retired. I can't do this anymore."

"It would have been nice if someone had called me," my wife's brother blurted, "I had a 45 minute drive to get here." The doctor shrugged, brushed past him and left, with my brother-in-law standing in an empty anteroom. In all honesty, this is going to be the new reality of medicine as doctors who refuse to compromise quality medical standards and let their patients die but who didn't want to end up in prison for saving the lives of elderly patients simply opt out of the profession.

At the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida on Aug. 27, 2012 former New York Lt. Governor Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D told a reporter that "...the hospital provider cuts in Obamacare—cuts to treating seniors—will cause 40 thousand deaths a year. And," she added, "that's an estimate based not on political stuff, but on the actual medical evidence from the Annuals of Internal Medicine, from the National Bureau of Economic Research." I expect the number of senior deaths from rationing and from the outright denial of benefits by the National Coordinators will be upwards of ten times McCaughey's "guesstimate." Why? Because, in the past, medical facilities did their utmost to save the lives of every patient, regardless of age. The Payment Advisory Board has changed all of that since their specific task is to greatly reduce the number of seniors receiving Social Security benefits in order to save Social Security from financial collapse.

When the reporter interviewing McCaughey asked her why there was no media attention focused on those numbers, McCaughey replied that "...because the Administration claims that cutting payments to hospitals and hospice care won't actually hurt patient care, nor will it affect their benefits. But, it's not true. The growing body of scientific evidence proves that when you cut [funding to] hospitals it means fewer burses on the floor and higher death rates from heart attacks, from hip fractures, from pneumonia, from very common conditions affecting the elderly. What it means is that elderly hospital patients will have a lower chance of surviving their illnesses and leaving the hospital and going home."

Interviewed by Accuracy in Media [AIM] on October 5, 2012, McCaughey told AIM that Obama "...has said, again and again, that he's only cutting payments to hospitals, not seniors' benefits. But you shouldn't be bamboozled by that. It's really just a trick and an illusion because this law takes $247 billion out of what hospitals will have to care for seniors over the next decade. In other words, the hospitals will have to care for the same [amount of] seniors with hundreds of millions of dollars less money. And, we know it means there's going to be fewer nurses on the floor, with fewer MRIs being done, less room cleaning, less physical therapy, and higher death rates becaue research sponsored by the Federal Institute on Aging, published in peer review articles, show it. This is not political.

"Research shows that patients treated in low-spending hospitals have a 19% worse chance of recovering from a heart attack. Whereas someone else treated in a higher spending hospital, for the same kind of heart attack, recovers and goes on with life. And, despite this evidence, the Obama Administration is actually awarding bonuses to hospitals that spend the least per senior, and whacking other hospitals with demerits for spending more. They are even penalizing hospitals for recommending the patient have physical therapy once they leave the hospital. Or for recommending a follow-up visit with the doctor. So we know these penalties are going to cost seniors their lives."

Finally, AIM asked McCaughey if what she was saying is unique to Obamacare since they had not heard of anything like this ever mentioned about any previous attempt by any prior administration trying to enact a national healthcare system. McCaughey replied that it was. In point of fact, it wasn't. Aside from the fact that every national healthcare system in the world (which offers a old age insurance) contains a euthanasia "clause" to keep its population from living too long. The Health Security Act of 1993—Hillarycare—Hillary Clinton's failed healthcare system also had the same anti-senior euthanasia devise found in Obamacare. But then, why not? Obamacare was modeled after Hillarycare.

While political hacks have convinced retiring consumers that the Social Security Trust Fund is solvent, the truth is, the Trust Fund is bankrupt. Uncle Sam is paying current benefits from current revenue receipts. By the federal government's own definition, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. When the next decade brings the remaining war years baby boomers into the Social Security system, they will create the human tsunami that President George W. Bush predicted, sweeping what's left of the US economy into the abyss. Bush-43 tried to fix it by privatizing Social Security to keep the politicians from getting their hands on the receipts and by providing illegal alien families in the United States with a fast track to citizenship which will pull the illegal population in this country from the underground economy into the tax-paying mainstream economy..

The left had a better way. The purpose of Social Security throughout the industrialized world has always been to fill the coffers of the State with tax revenues for general use. Providing pensions was secondary and simply the means to the end since most of the intended recipients would die before they collected their first pension check. But a failsafe devise was needed just in case too many retirees lived to collect them. That devise was a compulsory national healthcare system. It would be free for some, paid for by others. In Germany, like Obamacare, health insurance will be both free and compulsory for those below a certain income level or those with special needs since they are the bigegst drain on society's resources. The middle class will pay premiums for their coverage which, of course, will be the same compulsory healthcare system the poor enjoy—except the income-producing middle class will get to enjoy it longer than the poor—since eventually those who drain the system will be euthanized. (If you have stidued the history of the Soviet Union, you know that when the social progressives achieve their political objective and assumed power, their power was total, absolute and dictatorial. The proletariat (the low income laboring class) became the collectivized human chattel of the socialist aristocrats who are a select group of Americans who will be covered by the same program government offers its own employees, and a special public-private healthcare system will cover the rich and the entitled. They will continue to enjoy the best healthcare in the world without long waits to see a doctor or even longer waits for the lifesaving procedures Americans have always enjoyed.

Beginning January 1, 2013 scores of medical doctors [MD] and osteopathic physicians [DO] began hanging up their shingles because they decided they could not violate the Hippocratic Oath which first and foremost says, "Do No Harm." When a physician knows his patient is going to die very soon if he does not have bypass surgery or, at the very least, angioplasty, he can't—on good conscience—tell his patient to increase his daily aspirin from 81 mg to 325 mg and he will be okay. When he is told by the Obama Adminsitration's Independent Payment Advisory Board that if he

Discovering Obamafraud
Roughly half of the States—27 of them—sued the federal government over the individual mandate found in Obamacare which would force every American to buy health insurance or pay an annual fine equal to the Obamacare premium. The government insisted that, under the commerce clause, it had the right to impose such a fine. There were five scenarios that could play out, with the States holding their breath as the court debated five options: (1) uphold the law as constitutional, (2) strike down the entire law, (3) strike down the individual mandate that rquires every citizen to buy health insurance, (4) strike down the provisions that prohibits insurers from refusing coverage based on preexisting conditions or allowing insurers to uncharge people with preexisting conditions but still requiring them to cover the those with preexisting conditions, or (5) make no decision at all citing a law that bars court challenges over taxes that have not yet been levied. On Thursday, June 28, 2012, the high court chose option six (not covered—nor anticipated by anyone).

In a bizzare, complex high court decision which determined the individual mandate was a violation of the commerce clause because Congress lacked the authority to fine people for not doing something—in this case, for not buying health insurance, the Supreme Courtruled that Congress lacked the authority to fine people for not doing something. In a 5-to-4 decision, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts ruled (with the left), that since Congress lacked the authority to fine people for not buying healthcare, the fine could not be a fine, but it could be a tax. Thus, since Congress had to know that it lacked the authority to fine, what they levied would have been a tax, not a fine, particularly since the Internal Revenue Service and not the federal court system was taxed with the responsibility to collect it since "fines" are levied by the courts.

The Supreme Court decision stunned the States since the Obama Administration emphatically argued before the high court that Obamcare was not a tax. I believe they took that position because they expected their sham "origination" claims under HR 3590 tp be challenged since HR 3590 existed only as the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009. Afraid that their scam would be revealed by people googling the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009, the FCC had to rely on their friends at Yahoo, Bing and Google to erase the memory of the Service Members HomeOwnership Tax Act of 2009 from the Internet search engines and replace all references of HR 3590 as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148 and not the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act. The only way HR3590 googles as the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 is if those are the perimeter you insert in your search.

Three months after Andrew Breitbart died, the Supreme Court ruled on Obamacare. Writing for Breitbart.com, tea party leader and author of Covenant of Liberty, Michael Patrick Leahy said, "Chief Justice Roberts' ruling Thursday"...(June 28, 2012)..."is a bitter loss for constitutional conservatives, delivered to us by a judicial Benedict Arnold..." Chief Justice John Roberts did something he constitutionally could not do—he rewrote National Federation of Business v Sebelius from the bench and exceeded his authority as Chief Justice. His role, and the role of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court is to adjudicate disputes between the States and the central government over laws enacted by Congress based on whether those laws conflict with what the Constitution says. When the law contradicts the auithority granted government under the Constitution, the law is unconstitutional. These are simple "yes" or "no" questions and answers. No where in the Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Court given the authority to "fix the problem" by rewriting the law to make it "fit" the verbiage of the Constitution. Just as Congress lacks judicial or executive authority, the federal judiciary lacks legislative authority. Not the Chief Justice nor any of the Associate Justices, nor the magistrates of any inferior federal court in the United States has the authority to rewrite any passage of law to make it say something Congress, in writing and enacting the law, did not deliberately intend to say.

Whether well-intentioned or not, Roberts may have done what Franklin D. Roosevelt asked Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes to do in 1936. With the Hughes Court toppling the New Deal one law at a time in 1935 and early 1936, FDR invited Hughes to the White House for a rare chat. In that visit, Roosevelt suggested an accommodation with the Chief Justice. FDR suggested the two meet regularly to "exchange ideas." On Jan. 20, 2009 Obama suggested the same accommodation with Roberts.

Hughes was to share with Roosevelt some of the more problematic constitutional issues with the laws before the high court, and in exchange, FDR would share with Hughes new laws being created so Hughes could advise him now to word those laws to avoid having them challenged. The collusion between the Judicial and Executive Branches which Roosevelt suggested was unconstitutional. Hughes kept the conversation secret until FDR tried to stack the Supreme Court, then sent that exchange in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Burton Wheeler [D-MT] and House Speaker William Bankhead [D-AL]

Or, did John Roberts find a way to kill Obamacare permanently and completely? Did he "fix the problem" in a way that would allow House Speaker John Boehner to "fix the problem" once and for all? Would that have happened if Boehner had filing a lawsuit against US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Barack Obama for deliberately and fraudulently violating Article I, Section 7, paragraph 1—the Origination Clause by substituting an altered version of HR3590, the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009, as the House version of what should have been S.3962?

A couple weeks before he died on March 1, 2012, Andrew Breitbart began inserting "teasers" at the end of his blog suggesting that Obamacare was unconstitutional for that very reason. Does Obamacare violate the Originality Clause in the Constitution of the United States? If so, it is unconstiutional and needs to be overturned by the US Supreme Court. It is unconstitutional. Obamacare is as corrupt as the Democrats who voted it into existence, and as corrupt as the Repubicans who ignored what was going on, and knew that HR 3590 was the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 and had nothing to do with healthcare. Shame on Congress evry member on both sides of the aisle!


Just Say No
Copyright © 2009 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved