|
The Cowboy Byte
|
| July 4, 2012 News and Thoughts for the day |
WND News Alerts
| And finally, the IRS gets audited! |
| Yes, it's what you've wanted to hear for decades. The Internal Revenue Service is actually getting a dose of its own medicine, becoming the subject of an audit. |
| Read the latest now on WND.com. |
| Plus! |
| Happy 4th of July! Atheists proclaim this a "God-LESS America." Look what they plan across the nation. |
| Click here for details. |
| Must Read News |
|
| Other Highlights |
|
| Make WND your homepage today! |
| Daily Blessing |
|
Your daily dose of spiritual inspiration Today's Scripture reading from the Holy Bible |
| Joke Of The Day |
| Today's Poll |
Personal Liberty Alerts
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Conservative Byte
|
| July 4, 2012 |
Could Ron Paul pull an upset at Republican convention?
Ron Paul to hold "major" pre-convention rally.
The Ron Paul campaign signed a contract on Thursday to secure the University of South Florida’s 11,000-seat Sun Dome for Sunday August 26th, the day prior to the beginning of the three-day Republican national convention, where presumptive Republican nominee is expected to accept the party’s nomination.
“The Republican National Convention is just around the corner, and the establishment is about to find out what you and I have known all along this election season – the future is ours!” Mr. Paul wrote supporters in an email sent out on Friday. “So on Aug. 26, the day before the convention convenes, I hope you’ll join me at a special rally to celebrate how far our message and movement have come this year.”
During a recent appearance on CNN, Mr. Paul refused to endorse Mr. Romney, as he wants to have a strong presence at the campaign for his thousands of supporters who are expected to show up in strong numbers. Mr. Romney and Mr. Paul have different views of how the Republican party can not only win the general election, but also restore the economic vibrancy of the U.S. economy and reduce the national unemployment rate.
The Texas congressman has amassed a significant number of state delegates. The Republican party’s uniquely binding delegate rules has allowed Mr. Paul to build support, and the strong number of delegates could serve as providing Mr. Paul with credibility among Mr. Romney and the other top Republicans Tampa for the convention.
The Republican National Committee has approved of the pre-convention rally that will feature Mr. Paul, according to his campaign website, which further gives the Texas Republican and his supporters credibility for having their views heard on balancing the federal budget, scaling back government involvement in domestic affairs and drastically reducing the nation’s military presence in foreign countries.
Ron Paul campaign chairman said that the goal of the rally is to set a tone of “professionalism and respect” for the delegates that will be supporting Mr. Paul at the national convention. In recent weeks, both Mr. Paul and members of his campaign team have asked his supporters not to portray a negative or argumentative tone at the national convention, in an effort to make sure that his message for the Republican establishment is not shrouded by negative reports about his supporters.
The Ron Paul rally is not a ticketed event at the University of Southern Florida, so it will be interesting to see how many Ron Paul supporters travel from all over the country to show how much support their candidate has.
SWAT team blasts into wrong home due to unprotected wireless router
Thursday, EPD performed a SWAT raid at 616 east Powell Avenue, only to find out, the people inside the home aren't to blame.
An 18-year-old girl and her mother live in the home, you can imagine their shock during that raid, which broke windows and a storm door.
But EPD says, given the serious nature of the threat, the raid was well worth it to keep everyone safe.
"I was sitting on the couch, watching the Food Network and on Facebook or whatever and I heard this big crash and the windows busted," said Stephanie Milan.
Thursday was not a typical day for Milan and her mother, who were inside their Powell Avenue home when the SWAT team's two flash bangs broke their windows and storm door.
"It was really a shock. I'm like, I think they have the wrong house," Milan said.
EPD says callers alerted them to posts on topix.com. They say police officers are often the brunt of verbal attacks, but these threats were different.
"One of them specifically said that on July 4th, that an officer's home was going to be shot up, made reference to killing our children and our spouses," said EPD PIO Sgt. Jason Cullum.
Cullum tells us Milan and her mother aren't to blame, but the threats did come from their IP address.
"Because there were multiple posts from their IP address, we believe that it's somebody that's close that would be near there on more than one occasion on the same evening."
"They told us that someone's using our router that wasn't protected to threaten the cops and it wasn't us," said Milan.
Cullum says due to the severity of the threats, if police had the situation to do over, they wouldn't change a thing.
"I hope they catch the people who did it because what they did was really wrong," Milan said.
"This is direct threats of killing people, of blowing things up, and that's not freedom of speech," Cullum noted.
Police say the situation shows how important it is to protect your wireless Internet connection with a password.
EPD says they are still reviewing the electronics collected from the home. They are still searching for the suspect.
We'll keep you posted on their investigation.
One reason you should always password-protect your wireless router:
The Evansville Courier-Press reports,
Stephanie Milan, 18, was relaxing in her
family’s living room Thursday watching the Food Network when a heavily
armed squad of Evansville police officers arrived on the front porch.
Dressed in full protective gear, police
broke the storm door of the home at 616 East Powell Ave. — the Milans’
front door was already open on the hot summer day. They also broke a
front window. They tossed a flashbang stun grenade into the living room
that made a deafening blast. A short distance away, a local television
crew’s cameras were rolling. The police had invited the station to
videotape the forced entry of the residence.
Stephanie Milan said she managed to
remain calm because she knew her family hadn’t done anything wrong.
Still, she was stunned and confused.
After speaking to Milan and her
grandmother, Louise, police determined those inside the house had
nothing to do with their investigation.
Police were executing a search warrant
for computer equipment, which they said was used to make anonymous and
specific online threats against police and their families on the website
topix.com.
The threats were indeed specific and serious, but apparently did not
come from the Milans. ”They told us that someone’s using our router that
wasn’t protected to threaten the cops and it wasn’t us,” Milan told NBC local 14, Evansville, IN.What doesn’t make sense is this: if the police took this threat so seriously as to bust into a house with grenades, and then determined someone was using that house’s wireless router, why did they not even search the surrounding houses at all? Granted, the router could have been used by a passer-by with a wireless device, but could also have come from a neighbor who has been using that router for a long time. Why does one house get blasted and the others don’t even get questioned?
Local News 7 ends its report with this moralistic note: “The Constitution does not give a person the right to make threats or use intimidation against another person.” Unless, of course, you’re on the SWAT team.
ProLibertate.com has a longer analysis.
http://www.14news.com/story/18854572/epd-swat-team-flashbangs-house-related-to-threats-against-epd-families
http://americanvisionnews.com/3991/swat-team-blasts-into-wrong-home-due-to-unprotected-wireless-router
Letter: Why the York Housing Authority is snuffing out smoking
According to the
American Lung Association, cigarette smoking is the No. 1 cause of
preventable disease in the U.S. HUD advises that Environmental Tobacco
Smoke can migrate between units in multi-family housing, causing
respiratory illness, heart disease, cancer and other adverse health
effects in neighboring families, so smoking areas inside don't protect
residents. Concerning the non-smoking residents, according to the
Surgeon General of the United States, second-hand smoke causes almost
50,000 deaths in adult nonsmokers in the U.S. each year, including
approximately 3,400 from lung cancer and another 22,000 to 69,000 from
heart disease, not to even mention the deaths from actually smoking
cigarettes, which the Center for Disease Control states is an average of
110,889 deaths per year.
We are not here to force people to stop smoking but to guarantee all residents that they can live in a healthy environment which will not jeopardize their health. All residents should be able to breathe safe air. Residents need clean air, not increments of clean air.
Normally our frail and disabled residents leave our buildings. We also meet with residents monthly and have daily police patrols and police resident meetings. We had more people show up for meetings concerned about cigarettes than bullets being fired. It appears the author of Our Opinion did not read the draft housing policy and smoke free lease addendum which allows, on request, a temporary smoking exemption until their lease renewal date.
HUD strongly encourages public housing authorities to implement non-smoking policies. Across the nation, housing authorities are implementing smoke-free building policies to provide safe air, prevent disease and save lives.
Electronic cigarettes hardly just admit water vapor. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration have found that electronic cigarettes contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals such as diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze. The nicotine and chemicals affect the breathing of the person inhaling the cigarette and their chemicals cause second-hand vapor that has not been proven to be safe for other people. Australia, Canada, Israel and Mexico have banned electronic cigarettes.
It's hard to rationalize tax supported housing actually harming people who are of lower income. The goal is safe air for all.
RICHARD D. FOX
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
YORK HOUSING AUTHORITY
We are not here to force people to stop smoking but to guarantee all residents that they can live in a healthy environment which will not jeopardize their health. All residents should be able to breathe safe air. Residents need clean air, not increments of clean air.
Normally our frail and disabled residents leave our buildings. We also meet with residents monthly and have daily police patrols and police resident meetings. We had more people show up for meetings concerned about cigarettes than bullets being fired. It appears the author of Our Opinion did not read the draft housing policy and smoke free lease addendum which allows, on request, a temporary smoking exemption until their lease renewal date.
HUD strongly encourages public housing authorities to implement non-smoking policies. Across the nation, housing authorities are implementing smoke-free building policies to provide safe air, prevent disease and save lives.
Electronic cigarettes hardly just admit water vapor. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration have found that electronic cigarettes contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals such as diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze. The nicotine and chemicals affect the breathing of the person inhaling the cigarette and their chemicals cause second-hand vapor that has not been proven to be safe for other people. Australia, Canada, Israel and Mexico have banned electronic cigarettes.
It's hard to rationalize tax supported housing actually harming people who are of lower income. The goal is safe air for all.
RICHARD D. FOX
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
YORK HOUSING AUTHORITY
Question of the week responses: No smoking in public housing
Last week we asked: Do you agree with the York Housing Authority's decision to ban smoking in its public housing units?
Yes, I agree with the York Housing Authority's decision to ban smoking in public housing units. My husband was 53 years old when he died from emphysema from smoking. Also, these people are spending oodles of money for cigarettes that they should be using elsewhere in their life. If you allow them and help them to break their smoking addiction, give them that option before you would throw them out of the housing units. I think smoking is very hard to quit, but it is definitely for their best interests.
RONNIE SMITH
RED LION
I do not agree with the ban on smoking. At the meetings on June 12 and 13 a suggestion was made to charge a security deposit for smokers. The speaker said it costs five times more to clean a smoker's apartment; this is not true. All apartments, all of them, get painted and rug replaced when someone moves out. The speaker also said the smoke travels through the vents. What vents? Are the air conditioning and heat going through these supposed vents also? We live here because we have nowhere to go for the rent we pay. It's great that housing helps the elderly and handicapped people. Why can't they think of smoking as a handicap? Believe me, most of us would quit if we could, but after 52 years, it's impossible. By smoking in our own apartments, it doesn't affect anyone but ourselves.
JANET KAUFFMAN
YORK TOWNSHIP
I don't endorse smoking, and I quit smoking, myself, over 20 years ago. I don't think the government has any business in what do to with their own residents. These are poor people and most of them get some satisfaction from smoking, and knowing their habits, I'd just think it'd be a difficult thing to do. I think they have the right to smoke if they so desire, even if it is ruining their health, which it is.
ANDREW P. SMITH
SPRINGETTSBURY TWP.
On the no-smoking ban, I think people should be allowed to smoke where they want, but if housing has to ban it, I guess they will. I mean, as long as they sell cigarettes, people are going to smoke. I stopped smoking and I'm glad I did.
EDITH LOBIANCO
DALLASTOWN
I don't think you should ban smoking in the York Housing Authorities. What else do these older people have to look forward except smoking? Some of them can't even get out of their apartment, and I think they should be able to smoke.
BARBARA LABOUNTY
DOVER TOWNSHIP
Since most of the people living there are elderly or kids, maybe it would be best to stop the smoking. Also, at over $40 a carton and $5-$6 a pack, how can they afford it? To keep the elderly and kids healthy, stop the smoking. Besides, what would Uncle Sam do without all the money he's making on these cigarettes now? Think about it. Taxes are out of this world.
BILL MOORE
PENN TOWNSHIP
I've never lived in public housing, but I'm familiar with the type of people that administer the rules and regulations in such places, and they are generally pretty intolerant and narrow-minded. I have a feeling the ranks of the homeless are going to swell thanks to the micromanagement of people's health. I wish they would pay more attention to the psychological well-being and less attention to toeing these P.C. lines that everybody seems to fear. I wonder if they even asked the people in the building what they thought about it?
DAVID BUSER
YORK TOWNSHIP
I do not agree with the housing authorities banning smoking in your own apartment or in any of the units.
ROBERT LEAS
YORK TOWNSHIP
I agree with the Housing Authority. The property owner and landlord may set the rules for tenants as they see fit. So as long as the rules do not violate the rights of a protected class (race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability and familial status) the Housing Authority is breaking no laws and certainly not violating anyone's constitutional rights. If the tenants don't like the rules of the landlord, perhaps they should move.
TED VENTRE
DOVER TOWNSHIP
I applaud the decision of the Housing Authority to ban smoking in subsidized housing. I'm sure those residents feel they have a right to self-determination, but not when they are doing it at the expense of everyone else. If they have that much disposable income, maybe their housing contribution needs to be higher. We subsidize their housing, their food stamps and when the smoking starts to take its toll on their bodies, we'll also be subsidizing their health care for treating their heart attacks, strokes or cancer. The least they can do is take as good care of themselves as we are trying to do for them.
SUZANNE PICCOLO
SPRINGETTSBURY TWP.
I strongly agree with the York Housing Authority's decision to ban smoking in its public housing units. Why should they even want to smoke? They don't have money to provide their own housing since they need help from the government (working people) to provide a roof over their heads. Cigarettes are very expensive and is a want, a habit, and very unhealthy for you. Chances are if they are getting aid to find housing they are also on medical assistance. We working people then will have to pay to get them medical help when they get cancer or can't breathe from the cigarettes. If you ask me, the Housing Authority is looking out for them. The Housing Authority is also trying to save themselves money by not having to pay for maintenance personnel to clean up all the cigarette butts that people are too lazy to put in the trash. The ground is the quickest and easiest way to dispose of the butts. I know this for a fact because you see it all the time. People throw them out their car windows, on the ground before entering buildings, and just on the ground to get rid of them when they are done smoking them. This is definitely one of the things that someone on welfare or public assistance can do without and spend their (working people's) money more wisely.
TERRY SWEITZER
MACHESTER TOWNSHIP
It'll just take a moment until I light my next cigarette. OK, Ms. Peterson of York Housing Authority, are no constitutional protections for smokers, how about liberty and the pursuit of happiness? A stretch? No, nicotine is a legal substance. Tobacco is a supportive crop for many. Those who wish to stop smoking use nicotine products to aid. The taxes paid by smokers probably account for a large percentage of your salary. I'm 73, I've smoked since I was a kid and no, it did not stunt my growth. That was the only cautionary against cigarettes at the time. Grandparents and parents smoked. It was more unusual to know a non-smoker. It was an age of tolerance. As in no soda and fat "police," etc. The earliest days of television featured dancing cigarette packs. Advertising flourished. During World War II, "smoke 'em if ya got 'em" was the direct order. Businesses furnished ash trays for anyone's desk. No outcasts huddling outdoors to have a smoke break and wasting company time. Cars were built with ashtrays front and back. There was an onus among some that smoking in public wasn't "lady like." Smokers have been discriminated against for many years. Public housing might have the authority to ban smoking, but one's home, public or private, should be one's castle no matter how humble or grand. Aromatic, pleasure and respect for those preferring not to smoke ... I flick my BIC to you.
CONSTANCE
SHEELY-GOOD
YORK
In answer to Shelly Peterson's challenge ("There are no constitutional protections for smokers. I challenge you to find it"), the Constitution of the United States offers the following:
Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
If Ms. Peterson wishes to enact a smoking ban, it must include all other activities involving lit objects such as candles or incense, otherwise it discriminates against a select group of people performing an action which is politically and socially unpopular.
The Supreme Court of the United States has also held that all have freedom in their homes to do what they like, unless such action harms the property or is an illegal act. Since cigarettes, incense and candles all emit fumes and have the capacity to burn a piece of property if not used properly, again, this is an illegal form of discrimination unless all objects that are used by burning are also outlawed.
Unless Ms. Peterson wishes a (literal) federal case to be made of this, I suggest that she either include the things listed above or rescind the smoking ban.
The former, however, is also unconstitutional. For the sake of brevity, I will not explain this at this time.
DALE LEE MASTERS
YORK
Yes I do. Smoking is not only a fire hazard but a serious health hazard. Those of us who choose to keep our bodies free of toxic substances should not have to breathe cigarette, cigar or pipe smoke. Our safety should not be jeopardized. We should not have to pay higher insurance premiums to cover the increased medical expense. And we shouldn't have to pick up the butts in order to keep our properties neat. It's about time we all decide to live consciously. That means making choices that bless ourselves, everyone else, and all of God's creation, too.
WILLA LEFEVER
NORTH CODORUS TWP.
Yes, I agree with the York Housing Authority's decision to ban smoking in public housing units. My husband was 53 years old when he died from emphysema from smoking. Also, these people are spending oodles of money for cigarettes that they should be using elsewhere in their life. If you allow them and help them to break their smoking addiction, give them that option before you would throw them out of the housing units. I think smoking is very hard to quit, but it is definitely for their best interests.
RONNIE SMITH
RED LION
I do not agree with the ban on smoking. At the meetings on June 12 and 13 a suggestion was made to charge a security deposit for smokers. The speaker said it costs five times more to clean a smoker's apartment; this is not true. All apartments, all of them, get painted and rug replaced when someone moves out. The speaker also said the smoke travels through the vents. What vents? Are the air conditioning and heat going through these supposed vents also? We live here because we have nowhere to go for the rent we pay. It's great that housing helps the elderly and handicapped people. Why can't they think of smoking as a handicap? Believe me, most of us would quit if we could, but after 52 years, it's impossible. By smoking in our own apartments, it doesn't affect anyone but ourselves.
JANET KAUFFMAN
YORK TOWNSHIP
I don't endorse smoking, and I quit smoking, myself, over 20 years ago. I don't think the government has any business in what do to with their own residents. These are poor people and most of them get some satisfaction from smoking, and knowing their habits, I'd just think it'd be a difficult thing to do. I think they have the right to smoke if they so desire, even if it is ruining their health, which it is.
ANDREW P. SMITH
SPRINGETTSBURY TWP.
On the no-smoking ban, I think people should be allowed to smoke where they want, but if housing has to ban it, I guess they will. I mean, as long as they sell cigarettes, people are going to smoke. I stopped smoking and I'm glad I did.
EDITH LOBIANCO
DALLASTOWN
I don't think you should ban smoking in the York Housing Authorities. What else do these older people have to look forward except smoking? Some of them can't even get out of their apartment, and I think they should be able to smoke.
BARBARA LABOUNTY
DOVER TOWNSHIP
Since most of the people living there are elderly or kids, maybe it would be best to stop the smoking. Also, at over $40 a carton and $5-$6 a pack, how can they afford it? To keep the elderly and kids healthy, stop the smoking. Besides, what would Uncle Sam do without all the money he's making on these cigarettes now? Think about it. Taxes are out of this world.
BILL MOORE
PENN TOWNSHIP
I've never lived in public housing, but I'm familiar with the type of people that administer the rules and regulations in such places, and they are generally pretty intolerant and narrow-minded. I have a feeling the ranks of the homeless are going to swell thanks to the micromanagement of people's health. I wish they would pay more attention to the psychological well-being and less attention to toeing these P.C. lines that everybody seems to fear. I wonder if they even asked the people in the building what they thought about it?
DAVID BUSER
YORK TOWNSHIP
I do not agree with the housing authorities banning smoking in your own apartment or in any of the units.
ROBERT LEAS
YORK TOWNSHIP
I agree with the Housing Authority. The property owner and landlord may set the rules for tenants as they see fit. So as long as the rules do not violate the rights of a protected class (race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability and familial status) the Housing Authority is breaking no laws and certainly not violating anyone's constitutional rights. If the tenants don't like the rules of the landlord, perhaps they should move.
TED VENTRE
DOVER TOWNSHIP
I applaud the decision of the Housing Authority to ban smoking in subsidized housing. I'm sure those residents feel they have a right to self-determination, but not when they are doing it at the expense of everyone else. If they have that much disposable income, maybe their housing contribution needs to be higher. We subsidize their housing, their food stamps and when the smoking starts to take its toll on their bodies, we'll also be subsidizing their health care for treating their heart attacks, strokes or cancer. The least they can do is take as good care of themselves as we are trying to do for them.
SUZANNE PICCOLO
SPRINGETTSBURY TWP.
I strongly agree with the York Housing Authority's decision to ban smoking in its public housing units. Why should they even want to smoke? They don't have money to provide their own housing since they need help from the government (working people) to provide a roof over their heads. Cigarettes are very expensive and is a want, a habit, and very unhealthy for you. Chances are if they are getting aid to find housing they are also on medical assistance. We working people then will have to pay to get them medical help when they get cancer or can't breathe from the cigarettes. If you ask me, the Housing Authority is looking out for them. The Housing Authority is also trying to save themselves money by not having to pay for maintenance personnel to clean up all the cigarette butts that people are too lazy to put in the trash. The ground is the quickest and easiest way to dispose of the butts. I know this for a fact because you see it all the time. People throw them out their car windows, on the ground before entering buildings, and just on the ground to get rid of them when they are done smoking them. This is definitely one of the things that someone on welfare or public assistance can do without and spend their (working people's) money more wisely.
TERRY SWEITZER
MACHESTER TOWNSHIP
It'll just take a moment until I light my next cigarette. OK, Ms. Peterson of York Housing Authority, are no constitutional protections for smokers, how about liberty and the pursuit of happiness? A stretch? No, nicotine is a legal substance. Tobacco is a supportive crop for many. Those who wish to stop smoking use nicotine products to aid. The taxes paid by smokers probably account for a large percentage of your salary. I'm 73, I've smoked since I was a kid and no, it did not stunt my growth. That was the only cautionary against cigarettes at the time. Grandparents and parents smoked. It was more unusual to know a non-smoker. It was an age of tolerance. As in no soda and fat "police," etc. The earliest days of television featured dancing cigarette packs. Advertising flourished. During World War II, "smoke 'em if ya got 'em" was the direct order. Businesses furnished ash trays for anyone's desk. No outcasts huddling outdoors to have a smoke break and wasting company time. Cars were built with ashtrays front and back. There was an onus among some that smoking in public wasn't "lady like." Smokers have been discriminated against for many years. Public housing might have the authority to ban smoking, but one's home, public or private, should be one's castle no matter how humble or grand. Aromatic, pleasure and respect for those preferring not to smoke ... I flick my BIC to you.
CONSTANCE
SHEELY-GOOD
YORK
In answer to Shelly Peterson's challenge ("There are no constitutional protections for smokers. I challenge you to find it"), the Constitution of the United States offers the following:
Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
If Ms. Peterson wishes to enact a smoking ban, it must include all other activities involving lit objects such as candles or incense, otherwise it discriminates against a select group of people performing an action which is politically and socially unpopular.
The Supreme Court of the United States has also held that all have freedom in their homes to do what they like, unless such action harms the property or is an illegal act. Since cigarettes, incense and candles all emit fumes and have the capacity to burn a piece of property if not used properly, again, this is an illegal form of discrimination unless all objects that are used by burning are also outlawed.
Unless Ms. Peterson wishes a (literal) federal case to be made of this, I suggest that she either include the things listed above or rescind the smoking ban.
The former, however, is also unconstitutional. For the sake of brevity, I will not explain this at this time.
DALE LEE MASTERS
YORK
Yes I do. Smoking is not only a fire hazard but a serious health hazard. Those of us who choose to keep our bodies free of toxic substances should not have to breathe cigarette, cigar or pipe smoke. Our safety should not be jeopardized. We should not have to pay higher insurance premiums to cover the increased medical expense. And we shouldn't have to pick up the butts in order to keep our properties neat. It's about time we all decide to live consciously. That means making choices that bless ourselves, everyone else, and all of God's creation, too.
WILLA LEFEVER
NORTH CODORUS TWP.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)