The Party Of Choice
Connect with us on social media:
  • Home
  • Get To Know Us
    • What is Conservatism?
    • What Do We Believe?
    • Tyranny of the Majority
    • "Tough" Issues >
      • Abortion
      • Gay Marriage
      • Marijuana
    • Conservatism, Free Thinking, and a Central Vision
    • Invitation
  • The Eyes of One
  • Videos
    • Choice Words That Win Videos
    • The Refinery
    • Radio Interviews
  • Articles
    • Movie Reviews
  • Sponsor an Ad
  • Unite The Right
  • Events
  • Store
  • Resources
    • Talking Points from Grassroots Radio Colorado Show
    • Petition
    • spOILed The Movie - Time to Fill Up on Truth
    • Flyers
  • Contact Us

Why The Right Rarely Kills

4/24/2013

0 Comments

 
The Search
 
It appears that last week’s horrors provided another of our  President’s “teachable moments,” because I learned something.  I truly did. I learned that the Left searches more for “Conservative” killers than evolutionists search for missing links. At one point, I swore I saw Leftists patching mismatched fossils together, labeling their discovery “Piltdown Tax Day Assailant.”  (For those non-science-buffs out there, just ignore me and read on.)
 
Salon’s David Sirota openly hoped the Boston killers were “white American males.”  No, seriously—perhaps he felt this would comfort grieving families.  David Axelrod suggested the killings were related to “Tax Day”—a clear dig at the Tea Party.  But Axelrod wasn’t alone.  Also accusing those flag-waving patriots were Michael Moore and Chris Matthews; and to my knowledge, neither apologized.  None wanted to face a clear case of Muslim terrorism, since Muslims strongly favor the Left.
 
In the same week, Paul Kevin Curtis—perhaps upset at having three first names—allegedly sent letters tainted with Ricin to President Obama and Senator Roger Wicker (R).  While I was blogging, news broke that Curtis was a “Southern White Christian Male.”  The Leftists were jubilant!  Stung by the emerging Islamic motives of the Boston killers, Leftists hailed Curtis as their “balance”—until it turned out Curtis was a Democrat.  Oh well, nothing to see here, folks…
 
…especially since Curtis was later released when no evidence was found.  Yikes.
 
Remember the furor over Jared Loughner?  He shot Democrats, so he was rightwing, correct?  Uh, no.  The guy studied the hard-left works of Marx and Hitler. And what about the Sandy Hook shooter?  His mother kept guns, right?  Whoops, turns out Adam Lanza was apolitical, if anything.  How about the Aurora monster, James Holmes?  ABC linked him to the Right because an Aurora Tea Partier had the same name.  No, really—as if Aurora has only one “Jim Holmes.”  Of course, ABC had the wrong guy.
 
And looking overseas, let’s not forget how Benghazi was “a protest, incited by a Conservative film.” 
 
Wow.  Just wow.  The search never ends.  And with each incident, the Left’s witch hunt puts both sides on edge, wondering if this will be “the one.”

 
The Reality
 
Have there been rightwing killers?  Of course, but they’re awfully rare.  By comparison, leftwing regimes from Stalin to Hitler to Mao to Castro left millions dead, and virtually all of today’s killings in American cities are done by the Left as well.  While most Democrats are good people, something in their ranks is proving corrupt, violent, and sometimes even deadly.
 
Make no mistake:  The Left’s witch hunt for Conservative villains springs from a need to divert attention from the monsters in their closets. I only wish we could “help” their cause by conducting polls of the following groups—to see how many favor, say, the Republican Party:
 
·    Muslim terrorists.
·    Gang killers.
·    Convicts. 
·    Extreme abortionists like Kermit Gosnell.
·    Everyone who steals campaign signs, files frivolous lawsuits, or commits voter fraud.
·    Prostitution providers (admittedly harder to track now, without ACORN’s services)
·    Cartel operatives.
 
I believe the percentage for each would fall below 20%, with most in single digits.  And of course, if it’s a good beating you seek, just cover a union rally while wearing a badge that reads, “Conservative Reporter.” Nice knowing you.
 
By comparison, if a Tea Partier gets really angry, he’ll threaten to not help clean up after the latest “Gosh, We Love America” rally.  Oh, he’ll still help clean up, but he’ll want his threat noted for future reference. He’s serious, folks—beware the angry Tea Partier.  So desperate have some Leftists become to find “Piltdown Tea Partier,” they’ve even planted people with racist signs at TP rallies.  Thrown out immediately, these undercover parasites remain oblivious to what they’re proving:  That so much of America’s hate is on the Left, they’re actually hiring themselves to provide it for the Right.  
  
Understanding Violence, Turning to  Freedom
 
Let’s ask a direct question:   Excusing the vast majority of peaceful Leftists, why do so many turn violent?
 
The answer lies in the Left’s goal of control—a goal I’ve detailed countless times.  Think about it.  You can’t value those you hope to control.  You just can’t.  For you, they are assets to manipulate; or worse yet, roadblocks to your plans.  And the deeper you plunge into this mindset, the more people transform before your eyes…from precious beings…into cattle.
 
To some extent, we see this mentality everywhere:  From schoolyards to boardrooms, street gangs to church pews, or families to governments. It can start innocently, with the desire to protect others, only twisting into anger and control when our help goes unappreciated.  Or it can begin earlier, as gifted kids demand applause wherever they go.  Ah, the Alpha Dogs.  Brandishing looks, wealth, strength, or charm, they coerce others to prop up their value.  And of course, sometimes the mentality starts when others control us, deepening our bitterness until we finally seize control in any way possible—few people lash out worse than victims.
 
Can this mindset infect the Right?  Certainly! Have you never seen the overbearing parent, or the beautiful kids at church?  How about the wealthy job creator who feels bitter when society blames and punishes success?  What of the legalistic pastor, or the honest gun owner who has lost one too many freedoms? We’re not exempt from control’s effects, and yet…
 
…we on the Right rarely hurt anyone.  Why?
 
The answer is simple: Ideology.  Rightwing people are no better than those on the Left, but when your beliefs revolve around personal liberty (Choice), you value people as freely-choosing individuals—the opposite of cattle.  That’s the beauty of choice.  Their liberty is your liberty, since their free decisions bespeak your inner freedom to allow them.  You control your own life, not theirs.  You’re content.
 
But the Left is never content until others are controlled.  Hence, their greater occurrence of violence.
 
Violence is the final expression of control.  Whether from bitterness or entitlement, one’s lust for control can reduce humans to subhuman status; at which time violence becomes acceptable.  Hurt them, and they’ll yield.  Strike terror, and they’ll cower.  Kill them, and they’ll oppose you no more.
 
Again, this isn’t purely leftwing.  Every group has violent members—even the brutal tendencies of nuns were exposed in that telltale documentary, “The Blues Brothers.”  (At the end of that movie, I sat back and said, “I think all of us here have learned something today.”)

My Conservative Brethren
 
It’s time we Conservatives take a fresh look at each other.  Ignoring the Left’s moronic crusade to find rightwing baddies, let’s leave them to conjure demons on their own.
 
Yes, we Conservatives can be annoying.  Yes, we can be pushy.  Yes, we sometimes disagree on issues like immigration, abortion, marijuana, gay marriage, and foreign policy.  But we get silly with it!
 
For instance, some of us feel America has brought terrorism home by intervening overseas, while others feel we’ve invited terrorism by showing weakness.  NEWSFLASH FOR BOTH SIDES:  More people are killed in the name of one religion than all others…combined. I’m not saying all Muslims kill—most don’t—but maybe Republicans and Libertarians should do the Conservative thing and leave “blame” to those doing the killing, kay?  Debate strategy, but don’t debate fault—which is beyond debate.
 
Right now, the Conservative Movement is more divided than ever.  Republicans clash with Libertarians.  Tea Partiers clash with the “Establishment.”  The Christian Right clashes with Social Moderates and Gay Republicans.  And of course, everyone’s favorite whipping boys are the RINO’s.  We act like we have nothing in common, 
but we’re wrong!
 
Right now, I call on all these groups to observe each other’s members and realize something:  Virtually none of these people commit crimes.  Virtually none of these people hurt anyone.  None of these movements—even those dastardly RINO’s—kill people.  While these are, overall, our nation’s best armed groups, they almost never harm anyone, anywhere, for any reason, at any time.
 
Conservatives are incredible!

When I left the Left, the first thing drawing me to the Right was all of you!  Furious with the Left’s desire to “manage” society through control, I fell in love with all Conservative groups.  All of them.  
  
You people keep branding each other as “just like the Democrats,” but you’re wrong!  We Conservatives all make mistakes, but we love America as the Founding Fathers envisioned it.  Sure, we can disagree on that vision, but so did the Founding Fathers!  None of us seeks America’s “fundamental transformation,” because any such transformation from a free market society would make us…Europe!  (For those who haven’t visited the Mother Continent, imagine California—everywhere.) 
 
You people yell at each other, but you don’t bomb each other.  And if you ever did, you wouldn’t accommodate it by seeking fault in political opponents. You aren’t the Left.   Not even close.

And unlike the Democrats, when you hear Muslim terrorists speak of being greeted in heaven by scores of virgins, you actually question whether that’s a good deal for the virgins!
 
I like you.  I like all of you.  For you all share something in common; something the Left will never hunt down or seek to expose.  
 
It’s called, “a conscience.”
0 Comments

Winning Through Losing: The Art of Concession

4/6/2013

0 Comments

 
Picture
As a former Leftist, I’m often asked how to debate the Left and win people to Conservatism.  Tell me if this sounds familiar:  You feel so right on an issue; so confident in your views.  But suddenly, you find yourself sputtering and stammering against arguments that—though ludicrous--just sound better than yours.

Ever been there?  I’ll bet you have.  And there’s a reason for it.

You see, the Left enjoys two big advantages over us in debate:  First, having little to no conscience, they’ll say anything—thus forcing us into constant defense mode, having to expose lie after lie.  This exhausts us, while keeping us from making our points (and yes, Lefties do this on purpose).  Second, since their highest goal is to control people, they know the value of hiding that goal.  This they do through selectively conceding points…

…and that, my friends, is the topic of today’s article.

Before I describe this tactic, why is it the Left’s advantage?  Why indeed!  Fact is, this tactic works better for us than Leftists (I use it all the time), but Conservatives have come to view any concessions in debate as surrender.  “Give an inch, and they’ll take a mile!” they say—and on foundational issues of principle, they’re quite right.  The Left really does work incrementally, but we mustn’t let that scare us out of sound strategy.  Don’t ever let your opponent dictate the game.  Trust me on this.  That’s where Democrats seize the advantage.

Let me show you a great example of Selective Concession (hereon, “SC”):  In yesterday’s article, I ranted against a line from President Obama’s Gun Control speech in Denver.  He allowed an opening, so I took it—and besides, I was furious.  But most of his speech was outstanding, because it employed SC in ways that, I assure you, frustrated any Conservatives who were listening.  I guarantee that many Conservatives felt outmaneuvered; outsold. 

Here’s an early passage:

“From the beginning of this effort, we’ve wanted law enforcement front and center in shaping this discussion and the reforms that emerge from it — because law enforcement lives this every day.  Law enforcement are the first to see the terrible consequences of any kind of violence, certainly gun violence — lives lost, families broken, communities that are changed forever.  They’re very often in the line of fire.  The law enforcement knows what works and what doesn’t, and so we wanted that experience and that advice.”

Notice how Obama sets up his proposals as coming from a trusted source—law enforcement.   Submerging his notorious arrogance, Obama selectively concedes mastery of the topic to someone else.  The result?  Obama comes off as the fellow learner, not the lecturer—and who doesn’t trust a fellow learner?  Fellow learners don’t control us, right?

So before even discussing points, Obama uses SC to frame himself not as an advocate, but as a humble student wishing only to share the trusted wisdom he has received.

Sound good?  Oh, he’s only getting started.  Let’s fast-forward:

“There doesn’t have to be a conflict between protecting our citizens and protecting our Second Amendment rights.  I’ve got stacks of letters in my office from proud gun owners, whether they’re for sport, or protection, or collection, who tell me how deeply they cherish their rights, don’t want them infringed upon, but they still want us to do something to stop the epidemic of gun violence.  And I appreciate every one of those letters.  And I’ve learned from them.”

Got that?  More SC, now reframing himself as learning from traditional opponents, not advocating against them.  Moving on:

“Aurora is very much a purple city.  It’s got a majority Republican city council; a majority of the state legislators are Democrat.  But they came together understanding that out of this tragedy there had to be something that made sense.  And so we’ve seen enacted tougher background checks that won’t infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners, but will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.”

Ah, now he’s selectively conceding the notion that only Democrats have the answers.  This creates an air of bipartisanship (dishonestly of course, but remember; Democrats don’t do conscience).  By the way, the Democrats in his audience (which was virtually all Democrat) knew full well that he didn’t really believe in Republican virtues.  As a former Democrat, I can say this with full confidence.  It’s like atheist Democrats not minding when their candidates act like Christians in order to win elections.  Democrats don’t care about anything but winning, since only winning can get them control over their fellow citizens.

In fact, Democrats are so well-trained in this deception, they even applaud these lines.

Moving on:

“Now, some say, well, we already have background checks.  And they’re right.  Over the past 20 years, those background checks have kept more than 2 million dangerous people from buying a gun.”

Now he’s selectively conceding an actual point—and look how well it works!  Look how open he appears; how reasonable!

There’s a couple more of these coming up, but right now, I want to share how the Left views Selective Concessions:  They see them as pure gold.  For a skilled Leftist (not the clumsy ones we sometimes witness on Hannity), the first task in forming any argument is to find those areas of your opponents’ views that you can concede, because these comprise the gold that will purchase your victory.  Whereas the Right foolishly tries to hide or evade SC, the Left seeks it out.  Worse yet, when we hide or evade our opponents valid points, it only makes those points look all the better when our opponents voice them.

Basically, the usual strategy on the Right is “Debate Suicide.”  We don’t see the gold.  And then, we find ourselves dumbfounded by the effectiveness of an Obama speech proposing absolutely wretched policies on Gun Control.

Let me give just one more example from Obama’s speech, and try to imagine how uncomfortable and outmaneuvered you’d feel as a Republican watching this at work in a room full of open-minded, independent employees:

“How do you rebuild some trust?  And I told the story about two conversations I had.  The first conversation was when Michelle came back from doing some campaigning out in rural Iowa.  And we were sitting at dinner, and she had been to like a big county, a lot of driving out there, a lot of farmland.  And she said, if I was living out in a farm in Iowa, I’d probably want a gun, too.  If somebody just drives up into your driveway and you’re not home — you don’t know who these people are and you don’t know how long it’s going to take for the sheriffs to respond.  I can see why you’d want some guns for protection.”

Oh no!  Now he’s conceding a point!  He’s giving an inch, so we’ll take a mile!

Hardly.  Obama knows exactly what he’s doing (actually, his writers do, but it’s the same thing).  By conceding this point, he gives much greater legitimacy to all his other points. 

Do you get the idea?  SC is a miracle device; that gold lining you can find in the cloud of your opponent’s argument.  Look for stuff on which you agree and lead with it—it’s quite simple.

Could I defeat Obama’s speech?  Oh easily, and so could you!  Throughout his speech, Obama made points that were rife with poor reasoning, and the way to attack them was by undercutting his assumptions—showing his statements to be unreliable—but unfortunately, I don’t have time to describe this here.  Another time, perhaps.

Instead, let me share an example of how I’ve used SC—on this same topic.  This is a paraphrase, of course—I can’t remember the whole talk.  But a couple days ago, I was faced with a hardcore Leftist who was preaching Gun Control to those around him.  Rather than talk over him or beat him down, I let him rage on for a couple minutes.  Then, I spoke (I’ll call him “Bob”):

Me:  “Bob, it sounds like you’re saying that you don’t feel comfortable knowing there are guns all over the place.  Well, good!  I’d be worried if you got a thrill from the presence of guns!”

Bob:  “Absolutely!  You never know when someone will have a bad day, and I don’t want them packing when they do!”

Me:  “And of course, we want to make as sure as possible that guns aren’t in the hands of dangerous people, right?  I mean, while anyone can have a bad day, we usually have knives nearby, but we don’t just grab them and start slicing away.  The big concern is the crazies, like the kid who shot up that theatre.”

Bob:  “Oh sure!  We need background checks.”

Me:  “What would you want those checks to look for?”

Bob:  “Well, criminal histories, I guess.  Drug use—“

Me:  “—How about psychosis?  You know, mental illness, psychiatric counseling—"

Bob:  “Oh sure, those are important.”

Me:  “I agree!  I mean, every one of those recent mass killings were committed by psychotics who showed lots of signs, but we just ignored those signs because our system keeps protecting this group or that, this condition or that…we need to stop protecting groups and just look at each person.”

Bob:  “Absolutely.”

(Notice how Bob’s temper has gone down.  And while those around us were previously being drawn in to Bob’s views and distrusting Conservatives, they now see me—a known Conservative—as the more reasonable one.  Thanks to SC, they’ll trust almost anything I say—though unlike a Leftist, I won’t use that to unfair advantage)

Me:  “Look, bottom line, I want fewer people being killed.  But we have to keep two things in mind:  First, all these mass killings happened in Gun Free Zones.  Every one of these mass killers specifically targeted places where no one would shoot back.  Second, none of these killers would even have thought of obeying laws that limit how much ammo you can carry.  I mean, does anyone here seriously think that the kid who entered a Gun Free theatre with intent to kill innocent lives would actually restrict his ammo because, you know, he wouldn’t want to break the law?  Seriously?”  (laughter)

Me:  “So let me ask a few really simple questions:

1.      If virtually all mass killings happen in Gun Free Zones, why would we want more Gun Free Zones?

2.      Until we can guarantee that criminals will be limited by these laws—and no one’s dumb enough to think that—then these restrictions will only guarantee that the victims will be less armed than those who would do them harm.   Do we really want that?

3.      One Senator—who happened to be a Democrat, but I’d feel the same whatever his Party—actually lectured young mothers on how much ammunition would be “appropriate” for protecting their children from intruders.  I mean, is that his call?  Jeez, I think that should be the mother’s call!  How does he know how many intruders will enter her home, or whether they’ll limit themselves to legal ammo levels?

4.      What if—before we start disarming victims and lowering the ammunition carried by law-abiding citizens—what if we instead secured our border to stop much of this inflow of drugs and violence into our country?  And once we close off the borders, what if we then actually enforced the laws already on the books and started disarming these gangs and crazies?  Right now, we’re securing nothing, disarming no one who ignores our laws, and instead we’re disarming the easy people who want to obey the laws—but they’re not the ones I’m worried about!  I mean, are you?”

(By this point, even the Leftist was nodding in agreement--which surprised me.  The others were completely won over.  To finish it off, I used SC one more time)

Me:  “But hey, background checks are great!  Guns are too dangerous to be sold to just anyone, right?  I guess my only concern is, who would oversee the checks?  I mean, does anyone here wake up in the morning saying, ‘Man, I sure trust my government!’”  (laughter)

Me:  “So let’s get a good system in place, but let’s also be careful just how much power we’re giving to politicians.  I mean, they always look the other way when their buddies are involved.  I know that’s walking a difficult tightrope, but the safety of kids and communities is worth more than simplistic answers where we just disarm the easy people.  We can do better.”

Understand, I’m pretty experienced in this, but you don’t have to say all the right things.  What really matters is Selective Concession.  Just look for that gold in any conversation--those areas where you can grant validity to your opponent, and how you enjoy learning from people on all sides—and the rest of your points will sound 1000% better!

In so doing, you won’t be giving up on your principles; you’ll be protecting them.

And maybe…just maybe…your opponents can start sputtering and stammering. 



0 Comments

The Government is Us!

4/5/2013

1 Comment

 
This is no article.   This is a rant.  I am really angry, folks.

On Wednesday, while in Denver touting gun control legislation, President Obama said the following:


“You hear some of these quotes:  ‘I need a gun to protect myself from the government.’  ‘We can't do background checks because the government is going to come take my guns away.’

     Well, the government is us.  These officials are elected by you.  They are elected by you.  I am elected by you.  I am constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders put in place.  It’s a government of and by and for the people.” (emphasis added)



My goodness.  I don’t even know where to begin.  I’m too enraged.  Setting aside the issue of background checks (which are necessary, but can be abused), I want to focus on two statements:

1.        “I need a gun to protect myself from the government.”
2.       “Well, the government is us.”  

Mr. President, in mocking those who want guns to protect themselves from government, you just openly endorsed “The Tyranny of the Majority.”  According to you, we shouldn’t fear government because the majority voted it in.  No, seriously—that’s your point.  In your mind, Mr. President, the government of the majority must be trusted by all and opposed by none.  Just like that!  Laying down our defenses, we are to ignore everything preached by our Founding Fathers, who never wanted citizens powerless against their government. 

Why?  Because, Obama is “Us!”  It’s a new America, ladies and gentlemen! 

Folks, let’s take a look—a good, hard, honest look—at who we’re being commanded to trust, ‘kay?  Let’s talk about this current government that is “us.”

For starters, President Obama gave us Attorney General Eric Holder, whom, after inexplicably dropping an open and shut case of voter intimidation against the Black Panthers, actually referred to African-Americans as “my people.”  That’s right:  The nation’s top cop—appointed by Obama—openly chooses one race as “his people,” refusing to prosecute members of that race when they are clearly guilty!  And yet, we all have to trust in Holder, because his boss was elected by a majority!

In Obama’s words, “The government is us!”

How about Fast and Furious, where Obama’s minions ran guns to Mexican Cartels, resulting in the deaths of at least one border agent and many Mexican citizens?

No problem!  Why?  “The government is us!”

How about plunging future generations $6 Trillion further in debt in less than 4½ years?

“The government is us!”

Huge money sent to the Muslim Brotherhood?

“The government is us!”

Billions sent to Green Energy moguls as obvious paybacks for campaign donations?  Oh, I’m sorry; those were “investments” in our economy…

“The government is us!”

$2 Billion sent to Brazil for deep sea oil drilling—when our own offshore drilling was shut down—and to a company whose top investor was the Democratic Party’s biggest donor?  (George Soros)

“The government is us!”

Obamacare waivers for privileged Big Labor?

“The government is us!”

A president who preaches “shared sacrifice” while spending more tax money golfing, partying, campaigning and vacationing than the last several presidents combined?

“The government is us!”

Let’s not forget a racist Supreme Court Justice who actually said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”   Why single out white men?  Oh, I know!  Obama’s bigots get to live by another standard, because…

…“The government is us!”

How about a string of indefensible decisions leading to several needless deaths in Benghazi?

“The government is us!”

No Keystone Pipeline, merely to placate Obama’s wealthy environmentalist donors?

“The government is us!”

Remember folks, “The government is us!” is just a thinly veiled cover for “Trust me.”  That’s all it is.

Oh sure!  We should trust in the almighty leadership elected by the majority, right?  Mr. President, where was this speech a few years ago, when George Bush and a GOP Congress were in charge?  While you were community organizing with ACORN, fundraising with Bill Ayers, and attending a church where white people were accused of inflicting AIDS upon the black community, did you tell people to trust in Bush’s leadership because “The government is us”?  Were you out on those Chicago streets telling people to disarm themselves because the majority elected Bush?  Really?

What a hypocrite.  This guy only loves “The Tyranny of the Majority” when he’s in it.

One last question for our Majority Tyrant in Chief:  Mr. President, if you now want the minority to be so unafraid of the majority, then why are you—the most well guarded majority leader in the world—so afraid of a lawfully armed minority?

Well, Mr. President, you needn’t be fearful.  You see, unlike your supporters, we on the Right aren’t shooting up Chicago, DC, Detroit, and other Democrat-run cities.  Seeing all people as beautiful and all children as precious, we don’t pick and choose which forms of racism are more acceptable—or in the case of your cheerleader Chris Matthews, which forms of racism are even racism.  We don’t seek out Gun Free Zones for easy slaughters.  We aren’t dealing drugs to America’s children, lining cronies’ pockets with billions in taxpayer dollars, or attending galas with coke-snorting elitists from the entertainment world.  Mr. President, WE AREN’T YOU OR YOUR SUPPORTERS.  So relax.  You’re safe.

We actually respect principles handed down by our Founding Fathers—you know, those guys who never mocked citizens for arming themselves or being wary of government.  We’re just silly that way.  We wear flag pins without the presence of news cameras!  Can you believe it?  We see America’s greatness as something for which to be thankful, not apologetic!  Go figure! 

Above all, Mr. President, when you look at us corny, God-fearing, people-valuing, flag-waiving citizens who didn’t vote for you, please remember this fact:

Your government isn’t us.

1 Comment

    Author

    Archives

    August 2019
    June 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    May 2018
    August 2017
    July 2017
    April 2017
    September 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    April 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    November 2011

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly