Why Rescue Murrieta? By Ed Faunce
Recalls happen when citizens become so fed up over an issue that they explode into action. When Rescue Murrieta (RM) exploded into existence, it was because Murrietans sensed that they had lost any meaningful control over our City’s massive development. But just taking a whack at the current City Council members will not bring permanent change unless RM stays involved beyond this recall effort.
RM members realize that it’s not enough for residents to restrict their involvement to voting for the City Council candidates. Murrietans have been there, done that. It doesn’t work! City Council election results show that incumbents are often returned to office even though the total number of votes for their opposition candidates exceeds the vote for the incumbent. But with so many candidates splitting the opposition vote, the incumbents are reelected without a mandate.
In fast developing areas, like Southwest Riverside County, residents’ predominant complaint is that developer interests always seem to get the upper-hand over residents’ concerns. And why not? The developers are constantly vigilant identifying acceptable candidates and supporting them financially. Ordinary residents, who are trying to cope with busy schedules, raising families, commuting to work, and paying the bills, cannot individually devote their time and effort to supporting candidates.
So what’s the answer? Are we Murrietans forever condemned to just complain about how we - the ordinary residents - aren’t heard? Isn’t there something we can do that will ensure that our interests are paramount with our elected representatives?
RM believes that there is a new idea in town. RM asks, what if the residents actually organized? You know, businesses have their Chamber of Commerce why not a Chamber of Residents? What if Murrieta residents formed a Political Action Committee, a PAC? What if Murrietans formed a nonpartisan PAC whose mission is to identify those residents among us willing to be our representatives? What if Murrietans were involved in the grooming, selection and financial support of their future elected leaders? And then, what if thousands, even tens of thousands, of Murrietans voted for their endorsed candidates? It would be a 10.0 quake on the political landscape.
Murrietans would be organized, on a long-term basis, for selecting and running our own representatives for the City Council, the School Board, the Water District Board, etc. Murrietans could plan initiatives to cover such issues as term limits, campaign contributions, rate of growth, quality of businesses developed and the like. But wouldn’t the developers simply outspend Murrietans? Wouldn’t the developers defeat our efforts by running their own candidates and pouring in their financial contributions? Wouldn’t the developers go outside the City, even outside the County, to get the finances to whip us?
In fact, the developers are already doing exactly that. The Southwest County Taxpayers for Responsible Government (we call it "Developers’ Inc.") has raised 40% of its reported $111,000 from outside of Riverside County. Developers’ Inc. But Developers’ Inc. has raised only $320 from individual Murrietans.
RM has raised $5,000, nearly all of that from individual Murrietans. When RM’s $5,000 contributions are compared to the Developers’ Inc.'s miserly $320, isn’t it clear that RM is the overwhelming choice of individual Murrietans?
But the Developers’ Inc. still has a financial advantage of $106,000. Why does RM still believe it can prevail over such financial excess? Because there is one thing individual Murrietans control that the Developers cannot touch. That one thing is the BALLOT BOX.
If Murrietans join RM, support this new kid in town in its efforts to find and endorse suitable candidates and then vote for those RM endorsed candidates, the Developers Inc. can spend all the money they have - THEY WILL NOT WIN.
When that happens, it will be the "shot heard round California." You will be sending the message that pay-to-play development is over in Murrieta! Those Murrietans are "Mad as Heck," and they aren’t taking it any more! Murrieta is no longer for sale!
If you agree with these ideas, then join RM and register to vote, vote a permanent absentee ballot and vote for the RM endorsed candidates. We live here! We will defend our City!
Edward Faunce, Rescue Murrieta Spokesman
RM members realize that it’s not enough for residents to restrict their involvement to voting for the City Council candidates. Murrietans have been there, done that. It doesn’t work! City Council election results show that incumbents are often returned to office even though the total number of votes for their opposition candidates exceeds the vote for the incumbent. But with so many candidates splitting the opposition vote, the incumbents are reelected without a mandate.
In fast developing areas, like Southwest Riverside County, residents’ predominant complaint is that developer interests always seem to get the upper-hand over residents’ concerns. And why not? The developers are constantly vigilant identifying acceptable candidates and supporting them financially. Ordinary residents, who are trying to cope with busy schedules, raising families, commuting to work, and paying the bills, cannot individually devote their time and effort to supporting candidates.
So what’s the answer? Are we Murrietans forever condemned to just complain about how we - the ordinary residents - aren’t heard? Isn’t there something we can do that will ensure that our interests are paramount with our elected representatives?
RM believes that there is a new idea in town. RM asks, what if the residents actually organized? You know, businesses have their Chamber of Commerce why not a Chamber of Residents? What if Murrieta residents formed a Political Action Committee, a PAC? What if Murrietans formed a nonpartisan PAC whose mission is to identify those residents among us willing to be our representatives? What if Murrietans were involved in the grooming, selection and financial support of their future elected leaders? And then, what if thousands, even tens of thousands, of Murrietans voted for their endorsed candidates? It would be a 10.0 quake on the political landscape.
Murrietans would be organized, on a long-term basis, for selecting and running our own representatives for the City Council, the School Board, the Water District Board, etc. Murrietans could plan initiatives to cover such issues as term limits, campaign contributions, rate of growth, quality of businesses developed and the like. But wouldn’t the developers simply outspend Murrietans? Wouldn’t the developers defeat our efforts by running their own candidates and pouring in their financial contributions? Wouldn’t the developers go outside the City, even outside the County, to get the finances to whip us?
In fact, the developers are already doing exactly that. The Southwest County Taxpayers for Responsible Government (we call it "Developers’ Inc.") has raised 40% of its reported $111,000 from outside of Riverside County. Developers’ Inc. But Developers’ Inc. has raised only $320 from individual Murrietans.
RM has raised $5,000, nearly all of that from individual Murrietans. When RM’s $5,000 contributions are compared to the Developers’ Inc.'s miserly $320, isn’t it clear that RM is the overwhelming choice of individual Murrietans?
But the Developers’ Inc. still has a financial advantage of $106,000. Why does RM still believe it can prevail over such financial excess? Because there is one thing individual Murrietans control that the Developers cannot touch. That one thing is the BALLOT BOX.
If Murrietans join RM, support this new kid in town in its efforts to find and endorse suitable candidates and then vote for those RM endorsed candidates, the Developers Inc. can spend all the money they have - THEY WILL NOT WIN.
When that happens, it will be the "shot heard round California." You will be sending the message that pay-to-play development is over in Murrieta! Those Murrietans are "Mad as Heck," and they aren’t taking it any more! Murrieta is no longer for sale!
If you agree with these ideas, then join RM and register to vote, vote a permanent absentee ballot and vote for the RM endorsed candidates. We live here! We will defend our City!
Edward Faunce, Rescue Murrieta Spokesman
posted by J. L. Kunkle at
Sunday, February 27, 2005
23 Comments:
I read that Mr. Sparks was withdrawing from the race , is rescue Murrieta going to endorse Nancy Knight or get another candidate to be a write in. I vote for a write in, the group shop take a vote and decide.
By
Anonymous, at Saturday, March 05, 2005 5:54:00 AM
I want to be a write in remember Donna Fry in San Diego. Last night in a dream GOD told me to run.
Your in Christ,
Kelly Doug Van Bastard
By
Anonymous, at Saturday, March 05, 2005 5:58:00 AM
As a member of Rescue, I think we should take the next candidate in line and endorse them as write in candidate if they accept. I did not agree with Tomasian endorsement however I accept it, if you go with Nancy Knight I will not vote for recall. I do not think they reflect the opinions of the residents. To much grandstanding.
By
Anonymous, at Sunday, March 06, 2005 5:23:00 PM
It's academic at this point because Rescue Murrieta already voted on candidates. After the Bear Creek forum, six candidates were up for selection. Now that Jon Sparks has had to withdraw, next up to bat is "Doc" Larry N. Francis, M.D. He has asked to be a write in candidate in place of Jon Sparks. RM has agreed to endorse him to run for Doug McAllister's vacated Council seat, should McAllister be recalled.
Edward Faunce
Rescue Murrieta Spokesman
By
Anonymous, at Sunday, March 06, 2005 10:08:00 PM
Some times you without humor should chill out. My reference to KD van Bastard in Christ was a reference to them being of like mind and in christ was a sarcastic reference to Douglas being a FORMER MINISTER. You should get laid and relax.
KDB
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, March 08, 2005 2:27:00 PM
To PMurphy,
I apologize for being unclear. When I said the issue was academic I was referring to the suggestion that RM ought to vote on a replacement candidate for Jon Sparks.
Absolutely I agree that the recall elections stand separate and apart from the elections to choose a successor for the vacated council seats.
The question, whether to recall one or more of the three targeted council members, is logically prior to the question who should replace them. The recall is bigger than the Chamber of Commerce, than the Southwest Taxpayers’ etc. or the Murrieta Police Officers Association. It’s bigger because each of those groups has an “axe to grind” which is narrower in scope than the issues faced by residents.
I tried to explain just how important this recall is in this Article “Why Rescue Murrieta?” Mr. Kunkle put that article on this blog.
Anyone who decides to vote against the recall because of the replacement candidates will likely lose the chance to ever vote to assert residents’ control over our council. If one or more of the replacement candidates do not work out, there are elections slated for November 2006. The involvement of Murrietans must stay more or less constant. The special interest groups are not going away. We must remain vigilant.
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, March 09, 2005 1:43:00 PM
To PMurphy,
I apologize for being unclear. When I said the issue was academic I was referring to the suggestion that RM ought to vote on a replacement candidate for Jon Sparks.
Absolutely I agree that the recall elections stand separate and apart from the elections to choose a successor for the vacated council seats.
The question, whether to recall one or more of the three targeted council members, is logically prior to the question who should replace them. The recall is bigger than the Chamber of Commerce, than the Southwest Taxpayers’ etc. or the Murrieta Police Officers Association. It’s bigger because each of those groups has an “axe to grind” which is narrower in scope than the issues faced by residents.
I tried to explain just how important this recall is in this Article “Why Rescue Murrieta?” Mr. Kunkle put that article on this blog.
Anyone who decides to vote against the recall because of the replacement candidates will likely lose the chance to ever vote to assert residents’ control over our council. If one or more of the replacement candidates do not work out, there are elections slated for November 2006. The involvement of Murrietans must stay more or less constant. The special interest groups are not going away. We must remain vigilant.
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, March 09, 2005 1:43:00 PM
To PMurphy,
I apologize for being unclear. When I said the issue was academic I was referring to the suggestion that RM ought to vote on a replacement candidate for Jon Sparks.
Absolutely I agree that the recall elections stand separate and apart from the elections to choose a successor for the vacated council seats.
The question, whether to recall one or more of the three targeted council members, is logically prior to the question who should replace them. The recall is bigger than the Chamber of Commerce, than the Southwest Taxpayers’ etc. or the Murrieta Police Officers Association. It’s bigger because each of those groups has an “axe to grind” which is narrower in scope than the issues faced by residents.
I tried to explain just how important this recall is in this Article “Why Rescue Murrieta?” Mr. Kunkle put that article on this blog.
Anyone who decides to vote against the recall because of the replacement candidates will likely lose the chance to ever vote to assert residents’ control over our council. If one or more of the replacement candidates do not work out, there are elections slated for November 2006. The involvement of Murrietans must stay more or less constant. The special interest groups are not going away. We must remain vigilant.
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, March 09, 2005 1:43:00 PM
To PMurphy,
I apologize for being unclear. When I said the issue was academic I was referring to the suggestion that RM ought to vote on a replacement candidate for Jon Sparks.
Absolutely I agree that the recall elections stand separate and apart from the elections to choose a successor for the vacated council seats.
The question, whether to recall one or more of the three targeted council members, is logically prior to the question who should replace them. The recall is bigger than the Chamber of Commerce, than the Southwest Taxpayers’ etc. or the Murrieta Police Officers Association. It’s bigger because each of those groups has an “axe to grind” which is narrower in scope than the issues faced by residents.
I tried to explain just how important this recall is in this Article “Why Rescue Murrieta?” Mr. Kunkle put that article on this blog.
Anyone who decides to vote against the recall because of the replacement candidates will likely lose the chance to ever vote to assert residents’ control over our council. If one or more of the replacement candidates do not work out, there are elections slated for November 2006. The involvement of Murrietans must stay more or less constant. The special interest groups are not going away. We must remain vigilant.
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, March 09, 2005 1:43:00 PM
To PMurphy,
I apologize for being unclear. When I said the issue was academic I was referring to the suggestion that RM ought to vote on a replacement candidate for Jon Sparks.
Absolutely I agree that the recall elections stand separate and apart from the elections to choose a successor for the vacated council seats.
The question, whether to recall one or more of the three targeted council members, is logically prior to the question who should replace them. The recall is bigger than the Chamber of Commerce, than the Southwest Taxpayers’ etc. or the Murrieta Police Officers Association. It’s bigger because each of those groups has an “axe to grind” which is narrower in scope than the issues faced by residents.
I tried to explain just how important this recall is in this Article “Why Rescue Murrieta?” Mr. Kunkle put that article on this blog.
Anyone who decides to vote against the recall because of the replacement candidates will likely lose the chance to ever vote to assert residents’ control over our council. If one or more of the replacement candidates do not work out, there are elections slated for November 2006. The involvement of Murrietans must stay more or less constant. The special interest groups are not going away. We must remain vigilant.
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, March 09, 2005 1:43:00 PM
To PMurphy,
I apologize for being unclear. When I said the issue was academic I was referring to the suggestion that RM ought to vote on a replacement candidate for Jon Sparks.
Absolutely I agree that the recall elections stand separate and apart from the elections to choose a successor for the vacated council seats.
The question, whether to recall one or more of the three targeted council members, is logically prior to the question who should replace them. The recall is bigger than the Chamber of Commerce, than the Southwest Taxpayers’ etc. or the Murrieta Police Officers Association. It’s bigger because each of those groups has an “axe to grind” which is narrower in scope than the issues faced by residents.
I tried to explain just how important this recall is in this Article “Why Rescue Murrieta?” Mr. Kunkle put that article on this blog.
Anyone who decides to vote against the recall because of the replacement candidates will likely lose the chance to ever vote to assert residents’ control over our council. If one or more of the replacement candidates do not work out, there are elections slated for November 2006. The involvement of Murrietans must stay more or less constant. The special interest groups are not going away. We must remain vigilant.
Edward Faunce
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, March 09, 2005 1:44:00 PM
To PMurphy,
I apologize for being unclear. When I said the issue was academic I was referring to the suggestion that RM ought to vote on a replacement candidate for Jon Sparks.
Absolutely I agree that the recall elections stand separate and apart from the elections to choose a successor for the vacated council seats.
The question, whether to recall one or more of the three targeted council members, is logically prior to the question who should replace them. The recall is bigger than RM, bigger than the Chamber of Commerce, than the Southwest Taxpayers’ etc. or the Murrieta Police Officers Association. It’s bigger because each of those groups has an “axe to grind” which is narrower in scope than the issues faced by residents.
I tried to explain just how important this recall is in the Article “Why Rescue Murrieta?” Mr. Kunkle put that article on this blog.
Anyone who decides to vote against the recall because of the replacement candidates will likely lose the chance to ever vote to assert residents’ control over our council. If one or more of the replacement candidates do not work out, there are elections slated for November 2006. The involvement of Murrietans must stay more or less constant. The special interest groups are not going away. We must remain vigilant.
Edward Faunce
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, March 09, 2005 1:45:00 PM
To PMurphy,
I apologize for being unclear. When I said the issue was academic, I was referring to the suggestion that RM ought to vote on a replacement candidate for Jon Sparks.
Absolutely I agree that the recall elections stand separate and apart from the elections to choose a successor for the vacated council seats. The question, whether to recall one or more of the three targeted council members, is logically prior to the question who should replace them.
This recall is bigger than the Chamber of Commerce, than the Southwest Taxpayers’ etc. or the Murrieta Police Officers Association. It’s bigger because each of those groups has an “axe to grind” which is narrower in scope than the issues faced by residents.
I tried to explain just how important this recall is in this Article which Mr. Kunkle placed on this blog.
Anyone who decides to vote against the recall because of the replacement candidates will likely lose the chance to ever vote again to assert residents’ control over our City Council. If one or more of the replacement candidates do not work out, there are elections slated for November 2006.
The involvement of Murrietans must stay more or less constant from now on. The special interest groups are not going away. We must remain vigilant.
Edward Faunce
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, March 09, 2005 1:49:00 PM
After reading all of the commentary I am hardly convinced that there are worthy reasons to vote for recall. Too much traffic? Development happening too quickly? Not enough infrastructure? It seems to me that all of these arguements could be applied to all of Southern California. All of the other trivial complaints sound like Westside Sour Grapes to me.
By
Anonymous, at Monday, March 14, 2005 9:08:00 PM
To RHolmgren, you said:
“It seems to me that all of these arguements could be applied to all of Southern California.”
But that is exactly the point of this blog article. Residents in fast growing areas express a common concern, i.e., that the development is too much and too fast. So what’s your answer? Are city residents simply consigned to forever complain and do nothing?
It seems to some of us that one of the problems is that large developers have inappropriately infiltrated the policy-making bodies of our cities – the city council. While we absolutely know that developers are necessary to build a city, we question the wisdom of allowing developers too much influence on deciding what, where and when to build. We believe that developers should stand before the council to argue its case for any particular development. What we see is that an examination of the financial records of city council candidates is that developers play a disproportionate role in funding their chosen candidates.
To a developer, the cost of funding candidates – or in the case of Murrieta – the cost of fighting the recall, is just a “cost of doing business.” That money is simply passed on to the ultimate consumer. But to the individual resident, the cost of supporting candidates comes out of discretionary income and cannot be passed on to any other entity. So the funding of candidates gives preferential treatment to those who pony up the bucks.
RM asked whether there was any way to counter this imbalance. The idea we came up with was to involve residents in the selection of candidates which builds on the strength residents own. We cannot compete with the developers in rasing money. (Compare the recent newspaper reports about the $116,000 raised by developers against the $5,000 raised by Rm) But we residents control other valuable assets, particularly in a democracy. We control the ballot box.
The RM new idea is that residents should organize to involve themselves in municipal affairs long before election day. If we wait until that day to express our desires, we will already have ceded the major influence to those with the big bucks. The candidates with any exposure and tose likely to win will be those back by the developers’ money.
While it is true that residents often vote against the developers’ candidates, frequently the opposition vote is spread out over so many opposition candidates that the moneyed backed candidates win without garnering even a majority of the votes cast. So what can residents do about this?
The key idea is to organize residents long before the election is held. Put out the word that prospective candidates should seek the endorsement of the organized residents. Hold candidate forums and then – just like primary – the residents vote to support a particular candidate.
Why would this be attractive to potential candidates? Which would a candidate rather have, a large sum of developer money to run a campaign or a committed group of residents who are going to turn out the vote? RM believes that eventually quality candidates, which we define as those candidates who truly put the residents’ quality of life first, we come to see that the ballot box is mightier than the bank account. When that happens, the residents will have successfully blunted the unfair advantage which developers currently enjoy in municipal elections. Then developers will stop spending money to influence the selection of council members because it will be a bad investment. They will then focus on helping the residents’ council build a community that establishes quality of life first and foremost.
But RM knows that every new idea begins as a minority. Most new ideas are scoffed at in the beginning. New ideas need to be tried out, to be honed and fine tuned. But there is an excitement that a new idea brings to the table which should be nurtured.
So, RHolmgren, we agree with you that all of these arguments can be applied to Southern California. We are supporting the argument that the status quo of immense residents dissatisfaction need not be the order of the day. We argue that residents must find ways to take control of the policy making bodies (councils) so that development will create communities that are beautiful, functional and even fun for the long term stakeholders – those that live there.
Edward Faunce
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, March 15, 2005 8:57:00 AM
I just think the main reasoning behind the recall is flawed. People blame developers for building too much too fast.I think they are just being scapegoated. They are trying to do what every business does which is respond to a consumer need and make a profit in the process. There is absolutely nothing wrong or evil about being pro business. I mentioned that the problem is regional and I should have clarified my position. I do not believe that the problems should be blamed on the developers or the city council majority for that matter.When I see a common problem regionally (traffic /overcrowded schools etc.), I place the blame on the state government of California. The state has under spent on roads and infrastructure for years. It is the responsibility of the state to construct and fund road and other infrastructure. And this state is falling further behind with each passing year. I just don't see how this recall will address the core problems of this community. I think Rescue Murrieta's time would be better spent lobbying at the state level.
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, March 15, 2005 7:03:00 PM
i can't believe people are still using the same old excuses. fist is was blame it on the county, now it is blame it on the state. You are another misinformed resident who thinks the council are victims. DEVELOPMENT is a local issue and as a developer I think the Murieta City Council are just poor negotiators and to short sighted. We alway have a fall back position, however in Murrieta what works works.
By
Anonymous, at Sunday, March 20, 2005 2:53:00 PM
Misinformed? Open your eyes! I drive around this area all day long. I work locally. Almost everytime I see a line of traffic it is near the freeway on/offramps. Off course development is a local issue fool! But at the same time the STATE/COUNTY has the responsibity to fund infrastructure to keep pace. Misinformed? That is RM's department Oh and by the way I am not afraid to hide my identity.
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, March 22, 2005 8:38:00 AM
Hey, Rholgren, you sound just like Kelly Seyarto. Please try to avoid name calling in your posts.
By
J. L. Kunkle, at Tuesday, March 22, 2005 2:29:00 PM
Sorry to inform you that you that Mr Seyarto and I are 2 different people. And I do not know him. I am stating my own opinion. I am part of the tidal wave of support AGAINST the recall. RM and their myopic clique will son relaize that they are just an extremely vocal MINORITY in a growing sea of new Murrietans. I think that using the word fool as an insult was a lot more mild than some of the nuanced insults those at RM use. The only questions I have for RM today is: Where is the hard proof that the "3 amigos" did not follow the brown act? Where is the proof that the "3 amigos" have been bribed by developers? Where is the proof that the "3 amigos" have broken any laws? All I read about are allegations and innuendo. As Clara Pellar once blurted, "Where's the beef?"
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, March 22, 2005 5:39:00 PM
rholmgren...you must have noticed by now that this blog is being used way less than it used to be. Why is that? Well, because Joe & Ed, the RM boys, don't like to have anyone disagree with them, they don't want anyone calling them names and they immediately cease postings whenever someone has the temerity to ask for proof. They can stand up at city council and call names and spout falsehoods because there is no opportunity to confront them. They can insinuate all they want in the Californian - nobody including the Calif. questions them. They can have 'candidate forums' in their own homes in front of friendly faces. But stand on their own, attend real candidate debates, back up their misstatements with facts - sorry. You won't see it here. Now when Faunce gets another snootfull, he'll get up the courage to bash you back but you'll never see Ed put himself in a position to have to answer hard questions. Oh - they also don't like anonymous posts. Last month when Seyarto was asking for people to own up to their comments they were defending it to the death. This month, with people standing up and calling foul on them, they're no longer fans of anonymous. I suspect if we continue to ask for facts and confront them, you'll see this entire blog disappear, followed by the rest of the RM crew. Rescue Murrieta indeed.
C. Ed Dodge
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, March 24, 2005 1:06:00 PM
RM needs to be called out louder and with more frequency. Their statements without facts or proof to back them up are just alot of hot air. RM get ready: the new Murrietans are gearing up to defeat you!!!
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, March 24, 2005 1:23:00 PM
I intially thought I had some commonalities with recall proponents. I am now very anti-recall. RM people write hyperventilating letters about "gridlock" and the big bad developers, but they have no details or reasoning to back it up. They simply smear and run. Throw mud and inuendo and yell really loud at anyone who disagrees. There is *NOT* gridlock in Murrieta (I still work in OC, so I know what gridlock is). Many traffic problems are from construction - not only is construction *temporary* but, when finished, it IMPROVES traffic and all the rest. Where's the rationality? Where's the clear thought? Finally, they complain that the city council no longer "listens to the citizens." On any given issue there are those that oppose and those that support. The losers can *always* claim they weren't listened to. it's not true, but they can claim it.
P. Murphy - you mean that you would vote for the recall *no matter who was running for replacement?* What if there were only developer-supported and employed candidates? What if all the candidates' platforms included boosting taxes and increasing development? This is what I mean by a lack of rationality amongst RM supporters. So, namecalling directed at people who rationally won't support the recall if there are only unacceptable candidates is intellectually bankrup.
By
Anonymous, at Saturday, April 23, 2005 2:16:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home