Kavanaugh and Common Ground

The recently concluded U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Justice Brett Kavanaugh have ignited the passions of all Americans. Seldom in our nation’s history have political sides been so fiercely divided. Democrats strongly believe Kavanaugh didn’t belong on the nation’s highest court. They strongly believe he is guilty of sexually assaulting a 15 year old girl 37 years ago when he was 17 years old. Many have called him a rapist. Many believe his angry response to these charges disqualifies him because he demonstrated a temperament and a political bias that is inappropriate for serving as a judge let alone a Justice. Many believe he would over turn Roe vs Wade, the 45 year old Supreme Court ruling that legalized virtually all abortions throughout the land, and because of this he is unqualified for the Court. These are Democrat’s beliefs. And it makes no difference how wrong YOU think these beliefs are. It’s clear Democrats are immovable in these beliefs. Polls show no other demographic is the determining factor in whether a person finds Kavanaugh qualified or not. Not age, race, sexual orientation, income, geographic location. Nothing but your political affiliation determines whether you think Kavanaugh is guilty of the cruel charges against him. If you vote Democrat you believe his confirmation to be a travesty.

Republicans believe Kavanaugh was wronged and smeared with lies and exaggerations in a calculated character assassination designed to derail his Supreme Court nomination. They point to the fact that no charge against him is any newer or fresher than 35 years ago. Republicans point to accuser’s inability to produce evidence or corroborating witnesses. They point to Kavanaugh’s lifetime of service in government and in community service and his wonderful family. They believe him to be a good man.

As this is written we are 3 days from his confirmation being solidified and the storm has not quelled yet. Democratic politicians even talk of opening investigations into the recent claims that date back 30+ years and of impeaching the Justice. Samuel Chase, an original signatory of the Declaration of Independence is the only Supreme Court Justice to ever be impeached. The U.S. House voted for impeachment in 1805. The Senate acquitted the Associate Justice that same year.

It’s hard to fathom where we go from here. Division is so firm right now. But this Republican hopes to invoke the words of three Democrats in this writing in the hopes of beginning a mending of this country. Few things politically have upset me to the degree this matter has and while I think it would be easy to point fingers at the Left for their tactics in the Kavanaugh case, there is no getting around the fact that the Left is firm in its belief. So continuing to try and change their mind amounts to pounding ones head against brick. They would say the same of the Right.

In 1963 President John F. Kennedy said: “So, let us not be blind to our differences–but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.”

It was in the context of world peace. But’s its cry for togetherness applies very much to today.

It was during his 1961 inaugural address that Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.” 

In 1988 defeated Democratic Presidential candidate Jesse Jackson addressed the Democratic National Convention in a stem winding speech where he repeatedly invoked the phrase “Common Ground”. “Common Ground! That is the challenge to our party tonight. Left wing. Right wing. Progress will come not through boundless liberalism nor static conservatism, but at the critical mass of mutual survival. It takes two wings to fly. The Bible teaches that when lions and the lambs can lie down together and none will be afraid, there will be peace in the valley. Common ground. American is not a blanket, woven from one thread, one color, one cloth. “

And in 2004 a State Senator from Illinois spoke at the Democratic National Convention about Red states and Blue states:

Three Democrats. One theme. We are all bound together and we all can achieve more when we work together.

Togetherness and love for one another is the only answer. It’s important for everyone of us to learn disagreement is not hate. Agreement is not love. Love is love. And we need a lot more of it.

So where can Americans find common ground:

Do we all want health for ourselves and especially our children?

Do we all want our politics free from corruption and graft.

Do we all want reduced crime in all forms?

Do we all want peace in the world and to remain free of war?

Do we all want safe, dependable roads and bridges?

Do we all want police forces that keep us safe and that don’t abuse their power?

Do we all want opportunity to pursue happiness as we define it?

Do we all want clean air and water?

Do we all want to eliminate the threat of global terrorism?

Yes is the answer to all these questions. And there are so many more that given time and some help I could list.

I’ve said many times, you and I are being manipulated. Sometimes its obvious and often it is more subtle. But both sides do it. Republicans and Democrats make crises out of whole clothe in order to incite the passions of their followers for the purpose of gaining money and votes. Be aware of this, sensitive to it, and reject it when you see it.

The American people have it within our own powers to end the hate and move forward happily toward a brighter future. Through volunteerism, charitable donations, and voting for political candidates who reject rank manipulation, corruption and graft we can put into power more honorable men and women. We’re capable. 17 years ago in the wake of 9-11 who would have ever thought a black man with a Muslim father and name would be a two term President of the United States? Two year ago who successfully predicted a vain, loud, egomaniac TV personality and businessman would be elected to the same office?

To get to the point where we can foster the type of political leaders we need to stop calling names and presuming each others motives. As pointed out above, we all want pretty much the same things. We all can share common ground on nearly all issues. We just need to better figure how to get there. Founding father Benjamin Franklin was renowned for his wisdom and ability to find compromise. He also said, “Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment.” 


10-23-73 The Genesis of Today’s Supreme Court Nomination Fight

With news yesterday (July 9, 2018) that President Donald Trump had nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court all hell broke loose.

Democrats held rallies outside the Supreme Court building and elsewhere in the country decrying the choice and vowing to give it “the fight of our lives” to stop Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Senator Richard Durbin even said on one of the Sunday TV News talk shows that sitting Senators ought to be willing to sacrifice their re-election in this year’s mid-terms in order to stop another Republican President’s nomination to the highest court in the land.

All this tumult might have some wondering, why is it like this? And, has it always been this way? There is no question the political divide in this country is wide and virulent. Democrats HATE President Trump and everything he says and does. And by extension they hate Republicans and all that they stand for. Many Republicans hate Democrats…but mostly, I think, they feel sorry for them. And I have to admit many Conservatives just think of Liberal Democrats as stupid. Prior to Trump the President Democrats loved to hate the most was Richard Nixon, whose responsible for today’s mess.

However, while we’ve always had political divides in this country and at times they’ve been extreme…just see the 60s…both the 18 and 19…60s…the process of nominating and confirming a Supreme Court Justice used to be done rather quietly and respectfully. It changed because of what happened on October 20, 1973. 

For those not old enough, educated enough, or interested enough, October 20, 1973 is an historic date and one of the darkest days (nights) in United States history. It would become known as “The Saturday Night Massacre”That was the night that our Constitutional Government was walking on the edge of a sword and nearly collapsed. It was the night President Richard Nixon tried to save his ass from impeachment and possible criminal prosecution by having Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox fired for continuing to look into Watergate.

So, you ask, what does Watergate and the Saturday Night Massacre have to do with today’s Cat and Dog fight over a Supreme Court nomination. It changed everything and established an excuse for the political retribution that continues to this day.

You see, Nixon knew he was guilty as hell of covering up his association with the Watergate burglars and for 1 year had been slowly squeezed into a position where that guilt would inevitably be revealed. He knew Cox was a no-nonsense investigator who eventually would find out Nixon’s culpability. So Nixon did what he thought he could get away with. He ordered Attorney General Elliott Richardson to fire Cox. Richardson refused. And quit on the spot. Not deterred, Nixon then asked the Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to do the dirty deed. Ruckelshaus, likewise, refused and resigned.

With the top two administrators of the Department of Justice now defying the President and out of jobs…the third person on the tree of authority in the DOJ was the Solicitor General. At that time that person was Robert H. Bork. Bork felt it was within the President’s authority to fire Cox. So he carried out Nixon’s order and gave Cox the ax. It was also rumored that Nixon promised Bork a Supreme Court nomination if he would carry out his order.

Well, as history tells us Nixon resigned from office the following August and that rumored Supreme Court nomination for Bork never came. That is…it never came from Nixon. Fast forward 14 years to July 1987. President Ronald Reagan tabs Bork for the high court. That’s when all hell broke loose for the first time…in a Supreme Court nomination fight…that is.

Democrats had a looooong memory. Like an elephant (as opposed to a jack-ass) they remember that Bork was the one who executed Nixon’s order to try to end the Watergate investigation. They hated Nixon. And for Bork to acquiesce to Nixon’s order made Bork public enemy number 1. Add to that the rumor that Bork was promised a Supreme Court nomination and Democrats were all fired up to stop him.

It mattered not that Bork was thought to have an extraordinary legal mind, and before and since the Saturday Night Massacre had established an overwhelmingly credible resume. This was about political retribution. Bork lost his confirmation in the Democrat controlled Senate 42-58. And in so doing a precedent was set. Through political vendettas, scorched earth, character assassination and political pressure Supreme Court nominees of a President could be stopped by the opposing party.

Democrats tried it again 4 years later when George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas. The Anita Hill sexual harassment charges dominating the process. But Thomas’ 52-48 confirmation vote was the closest in over 100 years. And the vote was strictly along party lines. Though it is worth noting that 11 Democrats voted in favor of confirmation. Only 2 Republicans voted against.

113 men and woman have sat on the Supreme Court. Only 12 have been nominated and rejected by the Senate. None since Bork. Others have been nominated and then withdrawn…in some cases due to a presumed Senate rejection. But none created the political fire that Bork created or established the precedent we all suffer through today.

Call us for affordable video production, 425-687-0100.


Abortion is a Red Herring- Woman Aren’t Stupid

Washington DC: United States Supreme Court

United States Supreme Court

As the final weeks of the 2012 Presidential election campaign draw to an end Barack Obama is pinning his hopes for re-election on an increasing few number of things. One is Big Bird. The other is scaring women into believing big bad Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts,...

Mitt Romney

is going to take away their right to an abortion. But a close examination of the abortion issue should put to rest most of the concerns Obama is trying to raise.

First of all Mitt Romney has softened his position by recently stating that he has no plans to pursue any abortion legislation once in office. Democrats, liberal media and, of course, Obama campaign officials jumped all over this as another flip-flop by a man they’ve been able to label a flip-flopper saying not pursuing legislation to outlaw or seriously restrict abortion is contrary to his position in the Republican primaries that he would sign any bill put before him that did so. For the truly stupid and inept reading this let me make clear there is no inconsistency in the two statements. There is a difference between “pursuing” something and signing that which someone else pursued, achieved and stuck in front of you.

But the reason this whole issue is a red herring designed to scare women and really sensitive men is because of a little thing called the United States Supreme Court. In 1973 in the case of Roe vs Wade the Court ruled abortion to be legal throughout the land. Furthermore, attempts in legislatures around the country to impose restrictions on abortion access have met with mixed results at best. It’s noteworthy that Reagan Supreme Court appointee Sandra Day O’Connor

English: Sandra Day O'Connor, 1st Female Assoc...

Sandra Day O’Connor Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

in Casey vs Planned Parenthood and Webster vs Reproductive Health Services, twice voted to strike down portions of state laws restricting access to abortions. And O’Connor was joined in fellow Reagan appointee Anthony Kennedy and George H.W. Bush appointee David Souterin the Casey decision.

Associate Justice David Souter of the US Supre...

Associate Justice David Souter of the US Supreme Court


If my point is not obvious let me be pointed by saying we’ve had three Republican Pro-Life Presidents since 1980 occupying office 20 years and in spite of their Supreme Court appointments Roe vs Wade remains the law of the land, with only a few reasonable restrictions having been OK’d by the court since. Abortion is here to stay. And Mitt Romney being elected President isn’t going to change that. So all naive and alarmist voters who buy into Obama’s scare tactics can take a deep breath and vote for Romney with a clear conscious.

Under the Pro-Choice/Democrat/Obama worst case scenario in order for abortion to be made illegal in this country here is what would need to happen:

1. Mitt Romney would have to win election. Even though odds of this are looking better every day, its far from a slam dunk.

2. Mitt Romney would have to stick with his position during the republican primary season to sign a bill banning abortion rather than revert to his position to protect abortion rights when he was running for governor in 2002.

3. One of the five liberal to moderate Supreme Court Justices would have to die or retire in the next four years.

4. President Romney would have to name and win appointment of a Pro-Life Justice to The Court to replace the Liberal Justice who departed. Not such an easy task when Pro-Choice advocates would be fully aware and would strongly oppose such an appointment, knowing such a successful appointment would conceivably tip the balance of the court into overturning Roe vs Wade.

5. Some city or state would have to overcome popular opinion and pass a law banning abortion or restricting so much that a court challenge would be inevitable.

6. A court challenge of such a law would have to be brought. And in being brought it would still face between 2-5 years before actually reaching the Supreme Court (and who knows what the configuration of the court would be at that time).

7. The newly configured Supreme Court would have to rule to overturn Roe vs Wade, something it has specifically chosen not to do in 9 different rulings since 1973.

and lastly…

8. With 70% of Americans believing some form of abortion ought to be kept legal; Congress would have to ignore that HUGE demand from the electorate and NOT immediately pass a new Constitutional Amendment allowing some form of abortion.

Common sense and basic math says the likelihood of all those things happening is astronomical. And if it did happen it would still be many years from now.

Democrats present themselves as the protectors of women’s abortion rights. And maybe they are. But they aren’t going away any time soon, though many of us sometimes wish they would. So just like its been for the past forty years abortion will remain legal. Even electing a Pro-Life President, like Mitt Romney says he is (now) doesn’t mean any justice he names to the Court will win appointment; and upon winning appointment to this life-time post there is no guarantee that same Justice won’t do as O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter did previously and uphold Roe vs Wade.

So go ahead ladies. Don’t be stupid. Don’t fall for the red herring. Vote for Mitt Romney.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.


Wisdom and Fairness of Health Care Law in Question

Official 2005 photo of Chief Justice John G. R...

Chief Justice John G. Roberts (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Supreme Court says the Federal Government cannot mandate that Americans buy health insurance denying the Obama Administrations claim that such a mandate was allowed under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately for those who opposed the law, including yours truly, the Court ruled that the Federal Government was authorized to tax those without health insurance. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the decision saying,‘‘Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness,’’. I’ll surprise my Conservative friends by stating, grudgingly, that I think Roberts is right. To disagree would impose undeniable limits on what our government can choose to tax. Since the adoption of the 16th Amendment creating the income tax, Congress has had the power to determine how and where taxes should be imposed. To impose a limit would render the Federal Government essentially impotent in its ability to pay for itself. “The law”, Roberts wrote, “makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.”

Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not happy about this. And I admit I’d never thought of the individual mandate in Obamacare as a tax and as such legal. Though clearly I and every American with an IQ above that of a Banana Slug knew in fact it was a tax. Part of the reason I didn’t think of it as a tax is because President Obama and the Democratic Congress that passed this nearly 3000-page law repeatedly said “it wasn’t a tax”. However, in arguments before the High Court the President’s Solicitor General repeatedly made clear the penalty for failing to have health insurance WAS a tax, and thus Constitutional an argument they won today.

English: Anthony Kennedy, Associate Justice of...

Anthony Kennedy, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

Justice Anthony Kennedy read the dissenting opinion and called the health care law, “invalid in its entirety”. He was joined in dissent by Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Alito. At the time of this writing their opinion and reasons for it are not available for reading or quoting.

With the Constitutionality of Obamacare now settled, and it is settled so those who oppose it can quit with  any whining; we must now revisit the law’s wisdom and fairness which Roberts pointed out the Court is not empowered to question. It still remains a bad law which does harm to the cause for its creation in the first place. The need for something like Obamacare came about because of the high cost of health care. Some would say the law was necessary because of the high cost of health insurance and the approximately 30-million Americans who are not covered by insurance. But insurance is expensive because health care is expensive. Those who are uninsured are uninsured because that can’t afford insurance. So, once again the problem is the cost of health care. Hello?

Obamacare’s only step toward controlling costs is to limit and regulate care. Determinations as to who and what care will be provided is, in large part, going to fall to government bureaucrats. How’s the wisdom and fairness in that?

Since the TAX for not having health insurance is well below the cost of the premium many, if not most, people and businesses will choose to pay the tax and drop coverage. Under Obamacare the TAX for businesses not providing health insurance coverage for their employees is $2500. With a fiduciary responsibility to stock holders, you have to ask yourself what is the incentive for anyone managing a business to carry insurance?  The penalty/tax for individuals not covered is as follows:
$95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, and $695 in 2016. Under Obamacare insurance companies are no longer able to deny coverage to a person seeking coverage based on pre-existing conditions. So, why pay for health insurance if you’re healthy. Why not pay the tax until such time as you get sick and then buy insurance? Financially, it’s the logical thing to do.

The end result of the High Court’s ruling is a law takes effect that will drive more people and businesses away from health care coverage, which will drive up insurance prices, which inevitably will drive more and more people and businesses away from paying for coverage. In the end insurance companies will no longer have a viable product that is affordable for anyone but the super rich. The burden of paying for Americans health coverage will fall on the already overburdened Federal Government. The added deficit spending will weaken the American dollar against world currency, as it already has, which will contribute to massive inflation, which will ultimately bring down the economy however strong or weak the economy happens to be. It’s a recipe for disaster.

The Supreme Court validated the Congress’ ability to tax. Sad but true. Fortunately, the disaster scenario we can all expect with the unfolding of Obamacare can be averted. As I wrote in a previous blog, Obama can’t Win Healthcare Test, winning the High Court’s decision will only inspire Republicans to vote Obama and Democrats out of office this November. Roberts has awakened a sleeping bear. The American people will not likely stand for the implementation of Obamacare without a fight. GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney‘s promise to repeal it will undoubtedly bring many who were on the fence about him to his corner. Senate and House candidates who continue to stand up against the new law will receive the money and support necessary to put the GOP in control of the Congress. Even the more liberal media outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times admit polls show more than 70% of Americans don’t like Obamacare.

Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts,...

Mitt Romney

Romney and Republican Congressional candidates need to make sure they don’t forget the aspects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that are good and that people like. Their challenge will be to figure out how to pay for guaranteed coverage for those with pre-existing conditions; the guarantee that you won’t be dropped by your insurance company if you get sick; the ability to keep adult kids on their parents insurance plans (though does it really have to be until age 26? I mean, I love my kids, but I expect them to stand on their own at a certain point. 1 or 2 years after normal age of leaving college, 24, seems reasonable to me).

My hope is the Supreme Court’s ruling today wakes up the American people and helps them understand the responsibility they alone hold. If your Congressman votes for a law you oppose, or an excessive tax it’s up to you to vote him out of office.  The High Court is holding YOU accountable. YOU have to hold your legislators accountable.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are encouraged.

If you like this blog we think you’ll like others we write. We humbly ask that you Click Follow Blog by Email at the top left on this page. Thank you. 

Obama and the Trail of Tears

John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can.” ~President Andrew Jackson 1832

English: Andrew Jackson - 7 th President of th...

Andrew Jackson – 7 th President of the United States (1829–1837)

Not since President Andrew Jackson’s fight with the Cherokee Indian Tribe has a President so boldly defied the dictates of the Supreme Court. President Barrack Obama is holding himself above the Court and the Constitution of the United States in the case of Arizona vs United States, and immigration law in the United States.

English: United States Supreme Court building ...

United States Supreme Court building

Yesterday the Justices ruled unanimously that Arizona’s 2-year-old immigration law, SB 1070, allowed local law enforcement to inquire and investigate the legal residency status of an individual being held on suspicion of a crime. This is the heart of the law which the Obama Administration tried to have killed. They didn’t want local police and Sheriff’s departments picking up the phone and calling Federal officials asking them to come pick up an illegal alien they have in custody. They didn’t want to have to do what Federal law requires, deport the law breakers.

English: President Barack Obama leaves the Dip...

Like Andrew Jackson, Obama heard the Court and has figuratively given them his middle finger. Within hours of the Courts ruling the Obama Justice Department established a toll-free 800 hotline phone number and a website solely for the purpose of ferreting out any alleged racial profiling conducted by Arizona Law Enforcement. The Justice Department wants to burden our courts, our tax payers and the good people of Arizona with as much trouble as possible for having the audacity to actually enforce the law. It’s not hard, in fact its easy, to imagine Hispanics in Arizona being encouraged by Obama representatives to call the hotline and falsely report incidents of civil rights violations by Arizona police.

Also yesterday, Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano

English: Janet Napolitano is sworn in as the t...

Janet Napolitano United States Secretary of Homeland Security

announced orders that bar ICE (Immigration Customs Enforcement) agents from cooperating with Arizona law enforcement in their inquiries into a criminal detainees legal residence status. In essence, in 49 other states police holding a jaywalker or a murderer can type a suspects name into a Federal database to check on outstanding warrants, past criminal history, and legal immigration status of a suspect being held in connection with a crime against local, or state law. But not in Arizona. That database report will not provide Arizona officials with the suspect’s legal residency status. So despite the Supreme Court’s Monday ruling that Arizona law enforcement can ask for a criminal suspect’s legal right to be in this country the Obama Administration chooses not to enforce that law.

Not since Andrew Jackson’s forced evacuation of Cherokee Indians from Georgia and other Southern states spawned the Trail of Tears has a President so willfully failed in his Presidential oath to “faithfully enforce and protect the Constitution of the United States” and its laws. Gold was discovered on Cherokee land in Western Georgia in the 1820s and the inconvenience of having native people inhabiting the land was problematic for gold seeking Georgians, Jackson, and the United States Congress. So in 1830 Congress passed and Jackson signed the “Indian Removal Act” in order to get the Native Americans off the land whites now coveted. However, in the case of Worcester vs. Georgia (1832) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokee. The Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokee Nation was sovereign thus making the removal laws invalid.  The decision was written by Justice John Marshal. As in this current case with Obama, Jackson didn’t like the ruling and issued his now infamous challenge, “John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can.” 

In 1838 the removal of the Cherokee began when General Winfield Scott, along with several thousand men, forcibly removed thousands of Cherokees from their homes and their land. The trip was brutal and about 4000 Cherokees died along the way on what became known as the “Trail Where They Cried” or the “Trail of Tears.” The fact that over 16,000 Cherokee signed a petition opposing the illegal removal didn’t move the Federal Government at all. The Cherokee were relocated to land in what is now Oklahoma.

The “Trail of Tears” tail is now taught in high school history classes as a shameful moment in American History. It not only displayed a brutal treatment of an indigenous people, it showed a President willing to snub the laws of the country in favor of what he personally deemed the proper action.

President Obama’s immediate and overt demonstration of his unwillingness to honor Arizona’s right to protect its people and to subvert the determination of the unanimous ruling of our nations highest court comes less than two weeks after he did likewise to other immigration laws by issuing a Presidential Executive Order prohibiting the deportation of children of illegal immigrants here in this country illegally. It comes three weeks after Obama’s stated support of same-sex marriage in violation of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. DOMA was passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law in 1996 by Democratic President Bill Clinton. DOMA says the Federal Government and no state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage even if the marriage is licensed in another state. In 2011 the Obama Administration declared they would no longer defend the law in court.

It matters not whether an individual or a President agrees with a law. In the case of a President an oath was taken to defend our nations laws, and in at least these two instances Obama is clearly in violation of his oath. Failure for a President to enforce our laws leaves us not in a Democratic Republic as established by our Founding Fathers, but instead has us inhabiting a Dictatorship or a Monarch which leads to tyranny. Something countless Americans gave their lives to protect against.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

  • Calendar

    • October 2022
      M T W T F S S
  • Search