February 5-8, 2014
Feb 05 06:30 SCSU history lesson Feb 05 07:18 CBO announcement a Dem killer Feb 05 08:26 The president who couldn't tell the truth Feb 05 09:19 Emmer wins CD-6 straw poll Feb 05 15:59 Alida can't like this Feb 06 04:30 Another Potter/Malhotra miscalculation? Feb 06 08:45 Democrats are toast Feb 08 12:56 Judge to taxpayers: Legislature can do anything Feb 08 14:30 Cleta Mitchell's devastating testimony
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
SCSU history lesson
SCSU's Enrollment from FY1999 to Present
by Silence Dogood
The figure below shows the FYE enrollments for SCSU from FY99 to FY14. All of the data is from the MnSCU website except the FY14 enrollment which is calculated from President Potter's projection that enrollment for FY14 will be down 5% from FY13. Based on the current enrollment, President Potter's projection of a 5% decline might be a bit on the low side.
On the scale shown, there are two peaks; the first smaller peak occurring in FY03 and the second larger peak occurring in FY10. After the first peak there were three years of declining enrollments before growth began again. The decline from the peak in FY03 to the trough in FY06 amounted to a decline of 2.73%. Stretched out over four years it was hardly much of a bump. It also only took two years from the low point to recover and grow beyond the previous peak.
We can't know for sure if we have reached the latest low point or not but most people are betting that enrollments are going to decline for several more years before finally "hitting bottom." Here are some important questions we should be asking:
The people that might have the answers aren't talking.
- How low is that "bottom" going to be?>
- What are the things that we can do to reverse or at least slow the decline in the short term.
- How long will it take to recover the enrollment lost since the second peak or is this the "new normal?"
- Was it part of the alleged plan all along to "right size" SCSU to 10,000 FYE in the first place?
Posted Wednesday, February 5, 2014 6:30 AM
Comment 1 by Patrick-M at 05-Feb-14 07:00 AM
Love your posts. As I look at these data I can't help but wonder when the mass retrenchment will start. Seems to me there is an infrastructure built for FY 2010 (15,096 FYE) in place of which much might be excess. This includes employees, buildings and vendors. Amazing that President Potter has chosen not to start an honest and open dialogue with the faculty and staff to address the decline and budget impact. Then again perhaps shared governance died with the so-called "Reorganization" which targeted the Aviation Department for closure.
CBO announcement a Dem killer
This NYTimes article lowers the boom on vulnerable Democrats. Meanwhile, this video will certainly pop up in campaign ads this fall after CBO's announcement:
Here's the devastating part of the CBO's announcement:
A new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office says that the Affordable Care Act will result in more than 2 million fewer full-time workers in the next several years, providing Republican opponents of the law a powerful political weapon leading up to this year's midterm elections.
The law is also expected to have a significant effect on hours worked, the nonpartisan budget office said in a regular update to its budget projections released Tuesday. With the expansion of insurance coverage, more workers will choose not to work and others will choose to work fewer hours than they might have otherwise, it said. The decline in hours worked will translate into a loss of the equivalent of 2.5 million full-time positions by 2024, the budget office said.
The administration's spin on this report was disastrous. One of the talking points sounded like the reduction in hours would let people cut their hours to keep their subsidies. The administration then suggested that those people will be able to pursue more creative activities. What they didn't say is that other families would get hit with paying those subsidies.
The simple fact is that the Anything But Affordable Care Act is a job-destroying disaster. The administration will attempt to suggest otherwise but that's pure spin. The proof is in the monthly jobs reports, most of which have been disasters.
What isn't getting reported enough is that the subsidies cover the health insurance premiums but they don't subsidize those policies' high deductibles. In most of the policies sold, those deductibles are enough to bury families in debt.
What that means is that the Anything But Affordable Care Act a) is expensive, b) is a job-killer and c) will devastate Democrats next November.
Posted Wednesday, February 5, 2014 7:18 AM
No comments.
The president who couldn't tell the truth
One of the biggest whoppers in Bill O'Reilly's confrontation with President Obama came when the president said that there wasn't "even a smidgen of corruption" within the IRS. Jay Sekulow, the attorney representing a couple dozen clients who were hurt by the IRS's corruption, wrote this op-ed in opposition to President Obama's whopper-telling:
While the easy and immediate response is to ask the president whether senior IRS officials typically assert their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when there's not even a 'smidgen of corruption,' his statement actually has deeper problems.
First, it is not remotely appropriate for a sitting president to make such a declaration in the midst of an ongoing criminal investigation.
Given that the FBI hasn't even interviewed the victims of IRS targeting, it's safe to say the president hasn't seen all the evidence.
How can we trust the results of an investigation when Barbara Bosserman, one of the lead attorneys, is not only a large donor to Obama's campaigns, but the president himself has publicly issued to that attorney his opinion about the outcome?
President Obama's whopper that there isn't "even a smidgen of corruption" within the IRS is insulting. It's also disturbing on multiple levels. It's bad enough that a presidential administration has effectively weaponized the IRS. It's worse that President Obama can't tell the truth.
He started by sounding scandalized by the IRS's conduct. It didn't take long for that schtick to end. When the IRS scandal was supposedly just in the Cincinnati office, President Obama condemned the IRS. When the allegedly rogue agents from the Cincinnati office testified that Washington was calling the shots, President Obama and Elijah Cummings changed their tone instantly. It wasn't long after that that President Obama started talking about phony scandals.
Mr. President, it isn't a phony scandal when Lois Lerner pleads the Fifth rather than testify what criminal activities she was involved in. Her guilt is obvious. The documentation is overwhelming. As an attorney, you'd know that. As a corrupt politician, however, you can't admit that.
Third, he downplays the extent of the wrongdoing. In addition to the initial targeting scandal, we know the IRS leaked confidential information to friendly leftist media outlets .
The fact that the Justice Department hasn't started a grand jury investigation into this shows how corrupt DOJ is. The information leaked was confidential information contained in a conservative organization's filings to the IRS. It's disgusting that President Obama would attempt to spin this criminal activity as anything but criminal activity.
Saying that there isn't a smidgen of corruption within the IRS when this much corruption is part of people's sworn testimony is awful.
Considering the overwhelming proof of massive, systemic corruption and President Obama's insistence that corruption doesn't exist, there's just a single conclusion that thoughtful people can make. That conclusion is that President Obama didn't hesitate in lying about the IRS corruption.
Posted Wednesday, February 5, 2014 8:26 AM
No comments.
Emmer wins CD-6 straw poll
According to the Minnesota Morning Watchdog, Tom Emmer got a shot of good news from last night's precinct caucuses:
6th District Congress (97% Reporting):Only 4.3% of caucus voters were undecided. While this straw poll isn't binding, it can't be ignored. Rhonda Sivarajah can't be happy finishing 50 points behind Emmer. Phil Krinkie can't be happy that he finished almost 60 points behind Emmer.
Tom Emmer with 67.7%, Rhonda Sivarajah with 17.7%, Phil Krinkie with 10.1%
I'd be surprised if CD-6 delegates will be impressed with Commissioner Sivarajah's or Rep. Krinkie's showing. At this point, I'd argue that both face steep uphill fights to win the endorsement. I'd also argue that the odds of Tom Emmer winning a first ballot endorsement victory seem more likely this morning than they were a week ago.
In other straw poll news, Marty Seifert, Jeff Johnson and Dave Thompson appear to be heading for top 3 finishes in the gubernatorial straw poll. With 96% of precincts reporting, Seifert had 28% of the vote, followed by Dave Thompson with 26% and Jeff Johnson with 17%.
That's got to put a smile on Sen. Thompson's face. With a strong finish like that, Sen. Thompson can credibly tell potential contributors that his message is popular.
Marty Seifert has to be pleased, too. He can credibly tell potential contributors that he's got the experience, organization and name recognition it'll take to defeat Gov. Dayton.
While this wasn't the strong showing the Johnson campaign was hoping for, Jeff Johnson must still be considered a top tier candidate. He's got a solid fundraising team. He's managing his resources well (he's got the most cash-on-hand of the candidates) and he's got a terrific record of being a fiscal conservative.
This couldn't have been the night that Kurt Zellers was hoping for. Finishing a next-to-last 6th place with 8% can't instill confidence in potential campaign contributors or in potential delegates.
Based on the results of last night's U.S. Senate Straw Poll, it's looking like it's down to a 2-person race. With 96% of precincts reporting, Julianne Ortman led Mike McFadden by a 31%-22% margin. Finishing in third place was Undecided with 16%, followed by Jim Abeler with 15%.
With that many undecideds and soon-to-be undecided delegates, this is another race to watch.
Posted Wednesday, February 5, 2014 9:19 AM
No comments.
Another Potter/Malhotra miscalculation?
Enrollment Looks Bad, But We're on "Target"
by Silence Dogood
As of Wednesday morning, the MnSCU website reported spring semester enrollments for all of the MnSCU universities given in the following table:
These are not final enrollments as there are some part-term classes, graduate classes and Senior-to-Sophomore classes still to be enrolled. Four days earlier Southwest was down 222 FYE corresponding to a decrease of 14.4%. Since Southwest has approximately one-third of their FYE enrollment coming from post-secondary students that may be enrolled after the 10th day enrollment, the change in their enrollment was expected. Southwest's numbers will probably improve even more in the coming days. SCSU's post-secondary enrollment may also help improve its enrollment numbers.
According to an email on SCSU Announce from Provost Devinder Malhotra on January 31st,"While one may look at the information provided in the email below (referencing a previous DoGood article) and become concerned, the figures do not reflect what St. Cloud State's enrollment is shaping up to be for the fiscal year 2013-2014.Considering that the enrollment is down 7.0% on the 16th day, it's hard to believe, considering past year's enrollments in the Senior to Sophomore and Post Secondary Enrollment Options, that enrollment will only be down 5.6% (that would be an improvement of over 20%) by the 30th day of Spring semester. Miracles do happen and the optimist always hopes for the best. However, please remember that the owners of the Titanic never thought that they would need lifeboats on their 'unsinkable' ship and now the adage is hope for the best and plan for the worst!
- Our FYE enrollment for the year 2013-14, including spring term is likely to be what we had predicted and for what we have prepared. We have projected that the 30th day enrollment, the official enrollment for MnSCU, will be 5.6% down for the spring term. Likewise, we had predicted 5% down for the entire year and that is the figure that we are on target to achieve. Senior to Sophomore and Post Secondary Enrollment Options programs are not yet included in the figures. On Monday morning, I will receive an update on the enrollment which will be shared with the Faculty Association Leadership.
- With the enrollment predictions, the university's budget is manageable and we are on sound financial footings. We are not planning staff reductions to balance this year's budget. We have met the tuition and fee goals and details will be provided by the Finance and Administrative Affairs office to the Budget Advisory Committee.
Devinder"
The Provost wrote: "We are not planning staff reductions to balance this year's budget." For those who know much about the way universities operate, it's a bit hard to plan faculty reductions over three weeks into a fifteen-week semester (almost 2/3 into the fiscal year), because all of the faculty have contracts and are currently teaching classes. So if there were to be "staff reductions", it would have to come from draconian cuts in the administration because the classified and professional staff have already been cut to the bone by past budget reductions. So it's probably good news for the senior administrative staff that the administration isn't planning "staff reductions." More importantly, any cuts this late in the fiscal year won't have much of an effect on this year's financial situation anyway. It is important to notice the Provost did not rule out other type of budget reductions for this year and he did not mention plans for next year.
What's harder to believe than a 20% improvement in the next 14 days is this statement:"With the enrollment predictions, the university's budget is manageable and we are on sound financial footings."The following table shows the FYE enrollment from data from the MnSCU website for the enrollment for the past four years at MnSCU universities using the current 16th day enrollments to project FY 14 final enrollments.
Clearly visible from the figure, SCSU is an outlier among universities within MnSCU and that outlier status does not change even if the Provost's prediction of a 5% decline for FY14 comes true. In FY 11, SCSU was 587 FYE larger than Minnesota State University - Mankato and in FY14 SCSU is below MSU-Mankato by 1,845 FYE. Over this four-year period, SCSU shows a decline of 2,432 FYE. Just to put it this into a more comprehensible form, SCSU's decline in FYE over this four-year period is equivalent to 67.2% of the total enrollment at Southwest Minnesota State University! If SCSU loses 1,185 more FYE, SCSU will have lost enrollment comparable to the total enrollment at Southwest. Considering that SCSU lost 729 FYE in FY14 alone, this might not take too long to occur. As a result, if SCSU's enrollment doesn't turn around quickly, SCSU's enrollment decline will be larger than the entire enrollment at one of the MnSCU's universities.
The enrollment data can be presented in another, perhaps more illustrative way as shown in the following figure:
So even if, as according to Provost Malhotra, "Likewise, we had predicted 5% down for the entire year and that is the figure that we are on target to achieve," the university is ONLY down 5%, the three-year decline at SCSU would drop to 17.2% from FY11 to FY14. Perhaps only being down 17.2% instead of 17.7% is cause for celebration. Most anyone looking at the data would probably recognize that there is still a HUGE enrollment problem at SCSU and it is important to remember that enrollment drives the revenue budget.
Tuition accounts for nearly 2/3rds of the credit related revenue so a three-year decline of over 17% has got to have some serious financial implications! Moorhead's enrollment is down 11.4% over this same period and they are reducing their faculty and staff by 10% through early separation incentives and retrenchments. Bemidji has seen the writing on the wall and their faculty are just waiting for the announcement of program closings and consolidations as a result of their 9.6% decline in enrollment. There is even talk of serious budget shortfalls at Southwest and Mankato. Yet, the Provost stated in his email "With the enrollment predictions, the university's budget is manageable and we are on sound financial footings." Unless somebody is printing money somewhere on campus or the budget information that has been previously shared with the faculty is not accurate, SCSU will have some serious and substantial financial challenges going forward.
From the data, it is clear that the rate of decline in enrollment and revenue is slowing. However, no predictions for enrollment have been shared for next year and that fiscal year begins in less than five months. Will the hope for the best but plan for the worst adage be heard? Will the ability to predict enrollment improve? Last February, the administration predicted that there would be an enrollment decline for FY14 of 2.4%. In September, the administration's enrollment prediction was changed to a decline of 5%. Simple math shows that the change in the predicted decline was in error by over a 100%. It is hard to believe that anyone who has looked at recent trends in enrollment at SCSU would not predict that enrollment for FY15 will be down in the vicinity of 5%. Clearly, nothing has been shared that would lead anyone to believe otherwise.
So the BIG question: How can a university be down over 20% in enrollment in four years (assuming the Provost's prediction for FY14 is down 5% and next year's enrollment is only down 4%) and there not be significant cuts to the budget? Either the university had a lot of money they didn't tell anyone about (the printing of money was just a joke) or serious and substantial expenditure cuts are going to have to be made.
At least after hitting the ice berg the Captain of the Titanic sent out an "S-O-S." Apparently the Captain of SCSU does not want to acknowledge that his University is in troubled waters. If you are concerned about the future of SCSU, you have to hope for the best but that best may not be very good.
Posted Thursday, February 6, 2014 4:30 AM
No comments.
Alida can't like this
When Alida Messinger picked Tina Smith to be her ex's running mate, she sent the signal that she didn't trust Iron Range candidates. That's likely because Alida hates mining. Imagine her disgust when she found out that the Duluth Chamber of Commerce voted unanimously to support PolyMet :
The Duluth Area Chamber of Commerce has announced its board of directors has voted unanimously in support of the proposed PolyMet copper mine project.
Chamber president David Ross said the vote was to 'support advocacy for the PolyMet project. And to go beyond that and state that we are here to encourage decision makers to allow this project to proceed,' Ross said in a video statement.
While it's about 5 years too late, this development is still welcome. This puts pressure on DFL legislators because they're trying to thread the needle. DFL legislators have to please the miners. These legislators have to keep the environmentalists happy, too.
At this point, the environmentalists have to be discouraged. They've poured time, money, campaigning and misinformation into their effort to prevent PolyMet. At this point, it looks like they've lost the fight. It looks like they'll have to rely on President Obama's corrupt EPA to prevent PolyMet.
Iron Rangers have traditionally supported the DFL. Their faithful support shouldn't earn them the DFL's cold shoulder. At this point, the ruling Metrocrat wing of the DFL loves the Iron Range's support but they hate the Iron Range's pro-mining agenda.
Hopefully, the Iron Range will wake up to the fact that the GOP is pro-mining. Hopefully, that recognition translates into increased support for the GOP's pro-mining candidates. Hopefully, conservative DFL voters will file for a messy divorce the first Tuesday this November.
Frankly, it can't happen soon enough.
Posted Wednesday, February 5, 2014 3:59 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 06-Feb-14 08:04 AM
While the Iron Range finally voted out Oberstar in 2010, they turned right around and voted out mining friendly Cravaak for liberal Nolan in 2012 so I don't have any faith they will vote with the GOP. And while I feel sorry for the people living up there and the high unemployment, they get what they deserve for continually voting for the people (DFL) that refuse to allow good paying jobs to come to the area.
Democrats are toast
Karl Rove's last column tells how tough of shape red state Democrats are in. This information is especially tough for these Senate Democrats:
Then there is the nonpartisan Congressional Quarterly's summary of last year's legislative voting patterns. The four red state Democratic senators running for re-election gave Mr. Obama's policies almost perfect support, led by Louisiana's Mary Landrieu and Alaska's Mark Begich at 97%, followed by North Carolina's Kay Hagan at 96% and Arkansas's Mike Pryor at 90%.
They are now trying to distance themselves from the president. Mr. Begich says he's "disappointed" in the State of the Union address and promises to "push back" if Mr. Obama signs objectionable executive orders. But Dan Sullivan, the former Alaska Natural Resources Commissioner and the likely Republican candidate, can make hay all day long with the senator's voting record.
Ms. Hagan refused to appear with Mr. Obama when he visited North Carolina Jan. 15. Her likely GOP opponent, state House Speaker Thom Tillis, can cite this to show that she was rock-solid reliable when it came to advancing the Obama agenda but now that she has to face voters, she's ashamed.
This morning, I'm predicting that those Democratic senators will be among the first victims of the Obama Millstone Effect. The floundering economy, combined with their votes for the Anything But Affordable Care Act and their consistent support of President Obama's policies, will sink them.
Frankly, they'll have earned the voters' disgust.
Unfortunately, those aren't the only difficulties that these Democrats face:
The president's average approval in these seven Senate states is roughly 36%. If that's the case on Election Day, he will likely sink his party's candidates, who probably cannot run more than five points ahead of Mr. Obama's rating.
Even if they ran 10 points of Obama's current approval rating, they'd still likely be sunk. That isn't the position where they'll need to be. Most, if not all, of these senators should start writing their concession speeches.
Get out the butter, they're toast.
Posted Thursday, February 6, 2014 8:45 AM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 06-Feb-14 09:45 PM
Trouble is, as 2012 election showed, there are a lot of low information voters out there. And not all the lights are on in the Republican leadership either.
On the other hand, perhaps for the first time ever, a lot of Americans are finally face to face with the consequences of liberalism - no job, no doctor, no freedom.
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 07-Feb-14 10:14 AM
Oh how I want to believe that the democrats are toast and that the GOP will retain the house and take over the senate. But no matter how much anecdotal evidence there is to say it will happen, people tend to vote the way they have in the past and even those hurt by the ACA or the poor economy will find it hard to vote against the democrats because 'they care about the people' you know.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 07-Feb-14 04:35 PM
Rex:
Keep a couple of things in mind:
Indiana which we lost we had the candidate who unfortunately didn't learn from the MO senate candidate and that there was a third party candidate on the ballot that kept some votes from the Republican. That's one reason why we lost MT also.
Obama and his team helped get voters out which they are unlikely to do which helped explain the narrow wins of WI, OH, VA, and ND.
This slate has the weight that they did vote for Obamacare and helped keep it in place as written. Candidates like Warren, Baldwin, and the ND winner didn't have that problem.
2014 should be a great year, but the only problem more than anything else is that some Republicans in the Senate McCain, Graham, McConnell, and a couple of others have made it look like Republicans are just like Democrats.
Walter hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Judge to taxpayers: Legislature can do anything
Last night, I heard that the judge dismissed Jim Knoblach's lawsuit . The twisted logic behind the judge's ruling has essentially given future legislatures a gigantic loophole that essentially nullifies the Single Subject Clause of Minnesota's Constitution. Jim Knoblach's argument, the DFL's counnterargument and the judge's ruling are found in this document:
Here's where the judge created a gigantic loophole:
The crux of the plaintiff's argument is that, based on legislative custom and history, the passage of Section 21 was a significant deviation from traditional practice -- by its inclusion in a tax bill and consideration before a tax committee -- and was the product of impermissable logrolling that violates the Single Subject and Title Clause. Where the court has found that legislation is germane to a single subject, however, allegations of legislative improprieties cease to be a proper subject of judicial review. Certainly Plaintiff has highlighted significant oddities about this legislation and its passage, but such factors only become relevant if the legislation has failed the mere filament test.
What this judge just did was rule that the DFL could've put other capital projects into last year's Tax Bill:
But Judge Lezlie Marek rejected that argument, writing in her order of dismissal that the legislation did not violate the single subject requirement. The $2 billion tax bill was a sprawling piece of legislation , but Marek ruled that the office building provision is linked to the rest by a common thread of "financing and raising revenue to fund state and local government operations."
In other words, it's a single subject because the tax bill finances government operations. That's absurd illogic. The Senate Office Building project isn't part of government operations. It can't be part of government operations until it's actually built, if then.
By this judge's ruling, anything can be justified if it's ruled to be part of state or local government operations and it's included in the tax bill. That's a gigantic loophole for the DFL to exploit.
The lesson taxpayers should take away from this is that the DFL won't hesitate in spending hard-working families' money on things that aren't needed. Last spring, the DFL voted to spend $63,000,000 on an impractical building. Here's what we're getting forced down our throats :
Under the approved design, 44 senators from both parties and their staffs would relocate to the new building, and 23 others -- the DFL and GOP leaders and committee chairs -- would keep offices in the Capitol.
The "heart" of the new building would be the main floor with large, open public gathering spaces that look out on the Capitol through a "sweeping curve" of a glass and stone wall, said Jon Pickard, the principal designer with the Pickard Chilton architectural design firm. Large committee hearing rooms, which the Capitol lacks, also would be located on the main floor.
Senators and their staffs would have offices on the top two floors. A two-level, 265-stall parking garage would be built under the building.
The House Rules Committee hasn't voted to approve this monstrosity. DFL legislators can stop the building of this disfunctional, ill-advised project by not approving this project. If they approve Sen. Bakk's palace, they will have proven that they're irresponsible stewards of the public's money. Only a fool thinks that spending $63,000,000 on this ill-advised SOB (Senate Office Building) is a wise investment.
Anyone voting for the SOB isn't a trustworthy watchdog of the taxpayers' money.
Posted Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:56 PM
No comments.
Cleta Mitchell's devastating testimony
Thursday, Cleta Mitchell testified that the IRS scandal is real and that the investigation is a sham:
I wholeheartedly agree. During her testimony, Ms. Mitchell delivered this devastating information:
When Lois Lerner and President Obama accused line agents in Cincinnati of being responsible, ladies and gentlemen, that is a lie and I knew when Lois Lerner said that in May of 2010, when she admitted it was happening, after we knew it was happening -- we knew we were being targeted -- it's just that she admitted it. But I knew it hadn't happened in Cincinnati because the first time I became aware of this, another group I represent filed for tax exempt status in 2009. And besides cashing our check for our filing fee, we did not hear from the IRS again until June of 2010. And we didn't hear from Cincinnati. We heard from Washington.
Ms. Mitchell was a one-woman Cat-4 hurricane yesterday. Unfortunately for Democrats, she wasn't done with that refutation of the Democrats' chanting points:
This group did one thing, one thing only. For all of the fall of 2009 until the spring of 2010, it lobbied against Obamacare, something that it is allowed to do 100% of the time. We did not get the tax exempt status for that organization until July of 2013.
Ms. Mitchell's law firm is one of the top law firms in the nation. They didn't get that reputation by being sloppy. Their record-keeping is meticulous. For the Democrats to insist that this is a sideshow and that the scandal is phony is belied by these documents. It's real. It's chilling political speech. That's the Chicago Machine's way.
The IRS is picking up where the FEC was told it couldn't go in Citizens United v. the FEC. The IRS is using the FEC's definitions in its rulemaking to stifle political speech.
Watch the entire video. It's riveting TV. In fact, I'd recommend watching Catherine Engelbrecht's opening statement, too:
I'm thankful that citizens like Cleta Mitchell and Catherine Engelbrecht have stepped forward rather than being silenced. They're the personification of American patriots.
Posted Saturday, February 8, 2014 2:30 PM
No comments.
