Hilarious Republican Senate Leadership Survey

When did you stop beating your wife? This is one of the classic examples of a loaded question. This survey is a mix of both leading questions and loaded questions and probably some that are both. I’ve seen Democratic Party surveys and have never reacted this way to one. Perhaps this is because I’m a liberal.

However, I tend to be pretty fair about such things and would likely notice if they had questions that were this deliberately targeted toward proving that the constituency wants what the party is already feeding them rather than trying to find out what the constituency really wants. Of course, the next Democratic Party survey I get will likely prove me wrong since I’ll be looking at it more closely after seeing this shocker.

Note that I checked for copyright notices as well as admonitions regarding the reproduction of this document and found none.

Anyway, please read the survey for yourself. I hope you’ll be as amused by it as I am. If you were planning to vote republican in the next election, remember that these questions indicate what the republican party is already planning to do. So, if you think we shouldn’t be in Iraq, don’t vote republican. If you believe in nationalized health care, don’t vote republican. If you believe that stem cells have a lot to offer us*, don’t vote republican.

After the survey, I’ll post a few alternatively worded versions of some of the most egregiously worded questions. I’ll try to post a relatively neutral wording and an equally loaded and leading wording that would encourage the opposite answer to what the republicans want.

Republican Survey Page 1
Click image of page to enlarge


Republican Survey Page 2
Click image of page to enlarge


Republican Survey Page 3
Click image of page to enlarge


Republican Survey Page 4
Click image of page to enlarge

OK, so lets think about some more neutral wordings of some of the worst of these questions. It is never possible to be completely neutral. However, one should make one’s best effort to do so if one is writing a survey and really wants to know how the respondents feel. This survey is clearly intended to get a large base of republicans to answer in ways that back up what the republican party is already planning to do, rather than to make a determination about the future direction of the party.

First, lets just start with question 2, which is really a long series of how important one feels these issues are. Imagine yourself writing these. Wouldn’t you not only want to know the importance but also know which way a person felt about them? Maybe reauthorizing Bush’s tax cuts is important to the respondent, but do they want them reauthorized or not? Perhaps the respondent is not a billionaire who benefited from the cut. (Oops, now I’m being leading here. See how easy that is?) Perhaps energy policy is very important. But, does the respondent want to burn coal or fund renewable energy? Some might want nuclear power. Regardless, question 2 will not provide the real information. And, the tiny box in part 9 isn’t going to be enough space for any real detailed answers.

4. [note: liberal Democrats has become somewhat of a red flag phrase, especially as used by the republicans. So, this is leading wording, despite being less egregious than some of the later questions.]
Neutral wording: Do you believe we should repeal President Bush’s tax cuts?
Leading wording: Do you believe we should repeal and reverse the tax cuts that President Bush has given to the very wealthy and to corporations that are earning record profits like ExxonMobil?

10. (neutral) Do you support a nationalized health care plan?
10. (loaded & leading) America has the shortest life expectancy and highest infant mortality of any developed democratic nation in the world. Would you support measures to eliminate the profit disincentive for providing health care as implemented by privatized medical care and replace our system with one that would provide quality care to all Americans in the same way that every other democratic developed nation of the world does?

14. (neutral) Do you support giving U.S. Intelligence and law enforcement agencies additional rights to monitor communications within our country?
14. (loaded & leading) Do you support altering the constitution to allow law enforcement and intelligence agencies to monitor communications of U.S. citizens without the need for pesky court orders and warrants?

15. [note: This is so horrifically loaded that I'll probably have trouble being even close to neutral on this. I will try. Just be aware that in this question in particular, the person who wrote the question has already convicted the unnamed terrorists without even identifying them. They are already identified not as suspects but as terrorists.]
15. (neutral-ish) Do you believe that the presumption of innocence applies only to U.S. citizens?
15. (loaded & leading) Do you believe it is acceptable for the United States to detain suspected terrorists without legal representation and to interrogate them by means that violate the Geneva Convention and the United Nations Convention Against Torture as well as existing United States Law?
[Note: see Waterboarding on wikipedia's site for the ways that this violates international and U.S. law.

18. (neutral) Do you believe that the president should be subject to the checks and balances of other branches of government?

20. (neutral) Do you believe that the U.S. should pull its troops out of Iraq as soon as possible?

22. (neutral) Do you believe the U.S. should sign on to the Kyoto treaty?
22. (loaded & leading) Do you believe that the United States should remain alone among 162 nations in not signing on to the Kyoto Treaty for limiting the emissions of greenhouse gases that threaten to put a billion people out of their homes by 2050?

27. (neutral) Do you support the idea of faith based initiatives to provide services rather than having government agencies do so directly?
27. (loaded & leading) Do you support the idea of having the Federal Government give money to religious organizations that may discriminate on the basis of religion for the purpose of providing services even though this may be a complete and utter violation of the separation of church and state?
[Note on this last one, the government has always allowed this to be done provided that the religious institution agrees not to discriminate. The faith based initiatives merely remove the requirement that they be fair.]

28. (neutral) Do you support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman?
28. (leading) Do you support a constitutional amendment denying the rights of the LBGT community to enjoy the same benefits of marriage that the rest of us enjoy?

30. (neutral) Do you support our current ban on the use of embryonic stem cells for research?
30. (loaded & leading) Do you support our continued ban on the use of embryonic stem cells despite the existence of unwanted embryos from a variety of sources, especially from the leftover fertilized eggs of in vitro fertilizations which are currently thrown in the garbage?*

Obviously, I’ve left out many good questions that could be further picked apart for their bias or equally rewritten to be biased in the opposite direction. So, see if you can guess whether I sent in my $11 for processing my responses to the questions. In fact, see if you can guess whether I returned the form.

Lastly, did anyone see anything about this having been printed on recycled paper with soy ink? I didn’t think so.

* FYI: Every in vitro fertilization results in extra fertilized eggs that are thrown in the garbage when they are not needed. The republican party seems to have no problem with in vitro fertilization. However, they are against using the blastocyst instead of throwing it in the garbage. Somehow using it is a destruction of a soul, but throwing it away is not. And, this is all over something with fewer cells in total than a mosquito’s brain. And, the technology has the promise to save lives and cure severe chronic illnesses. (OK, sorry for the off-topic rant. This one just makes me sick.)

8/16/2009 — Added tags in hopes that those who search for Basil’s blog IMAO may come here to know exactly what type of person they are dealing with. When they see that all or nearly all people agree with Basil, perhaps they will know why. It’s called censorship. See my reply below his pingback written today.

I will say this for Basil though, at least he’s honest about being unfair and unbalanced.

21 Responses to Hilarious Republican Senate Leadership Survey

  1. Gary says:

    Great post. Thanks for taking the time to put it together.

  2. Shecky says:

    You left out my favorite part – where they want you to return the survey with $11 to help defray the cost of sending it to someone else.

    My wife got one of these and she isn’t even registered to vote. We threw it in the garbage where it belongs.

  3. Shecky,

    Good point. Yes, that’s visible on page 3 under “SUPPORT REPLY FORM” in case anyone missed it. Thanks for highlighting the incredible audacity of putting that in the section for people who neither want to take the survey nor support the party. One would have to be a pretty liberal (generous) republican to give them that as “no support”.

  4. smartbunny says:

    But it says DO NOT DESTROY THIS SURVEY! In capital letters! Oh no!

    I got one today. “Should President Obama meet with the leaders of Cuba, Iran and North Korea without any preset conditions?”

    He never said he would do that, you loaded, leading a-hole of a question. If I say NO then I am against Obama meeting with leaders. If I say YES then I am FOR him meeting with no presets, which he WOULD NOT DO. Sneaky jerks.

    Oh and here’s some money!

  5. smartbunny,

    That is funny! Thanks for sharing. We need to keep abreast of what the powers that used to be are up to.

  6. bobbo says:

    I’m not with you here Scott. I think the same questionaire would provide information if given to democratic voters.

    I actually don’t see a real bias at all. YOUR bias shows quite strongly when you demonstrate leading questions that aren’t what the survey asked. Why not show the leading nature of the actual questions instead of made up questions?

    Now–you did ask if it wouldn’t be better (less slanted?) for the survey to ask what kind of energy policy was preferred rather than whether or not the energy policy was “important.” Well, that really is calling for a level of detail that was not the purpose of the survey. Thats not bias==that is scope.

    Why not repost the survey with an indentification of the actual bias rather than the made up ones?

  7. bobbo,

    Why not show the leading nature of the actual questions instead of made up questions?

    I tried to do that by showing alternatives to the actual questions asked. I thought it was clear that my examples were numbered to exactly match the questions in the survey. I thought that comparing the actual wording with a more neutral wording and a leading question in the opposite direction showed the way in which the original question was leading.

    Did you really not think that the questions in the survey were leading?

    Why not repost the survey with an identification of the actual bias rather than the made up ones?

    I thought that is what I tried to do. I posted the survey exactly as I received it.

    I have to ask again. Did you really not think question number 20 was leading? They make the respondent check a box saying “we can win” or “we should cut and run”. Is that somehow not leading to you?

  8. bobbo says:

    Scott–I read about 5-6 of your examples and all of them were BAD. Your #20 is ok–but only because you only express a more neutral question. In the examples I think are bad– you dont simply state the question that is used in the form==you make up a much worse leading question. Thats NOT CRITICIZING the form, thats criticizing YOUR form.

    I’ll just say again==the form does not show much bias at all and would be quite appropriate to give to any group to get a measure on how either party might want to guide their campaigns.

    Your criticism shows your bias, not the forms bias. Or maybe I’m biased? No, WE ARE ALL BIASED. Yea, thats the ticket. Measuring bias is inherently a two way street===got to have a test to prove it?

  9. bobbo,

    Cool. I convinced you on number 20. Let’s try for number 15 now. After that, we can just agree to disagree.

    Here’s their question, with apologies if I mistyped it from the scan.

    15. Should foreign terrorists caught in the future or currently being held in U.S. detainment facilities be given the same legal rights and privileges as U.S. citizens?

    Now let’s try this again with my comments in bold within.

    15. Should foreign terrorists (Note the assumption of guilt inherent in the question, making this a loaded question.) caught (Caught how and caught doing what? This is further loading of the question.) in the future or currently being held in U.S. detainment facilities be given the same legal rights and privileges as U.S. citizens?

    So, lets start this a third time. We have the presumption of guilt before trial right here in the question, right? Clearly these are foreign terrorists. They are not suspected, alleged, or just plain foreign nationals. They are terrorists.

    How do we know before trial?

    They’ve been caught. Caught doing what? Clearly they were not caught red handed. In fact, they are foreign people with names on a list, derived somehow that is not stated in the question. Further, it is not clear that these individuals have even been positively identified as the correct Joe Schmoe from the list. They were pulled off the streets and put in a detention facility. That is all that is meant by caught.

    Under normal process of law, they would be arrested and charged with a particular crime. Here they are already called foreign terrorists who have been caught.

    Now let’s get to whether they deserve the rights and privileges of U.S. citizens. What rights are we talking about? We’re talking about things like the right to be charged with a particular crime. We’re talking about habeas corpus. We’re talking about the right to a speedy trial. And, we’re talking about the right not to be physically abused and tortured, as specified under both U.S. law, hence the foreign detention facility in Gitmo, and under the Geneva convention.

    Did they say that? No. They didn’t want to indicate that they might be talking about severe violations of the Geneva convention. They didn’t want to mention that this entire question was weasel worded to get otherwise fairly moral and decent people to say no and yes, respectively, to the following real questions being asked here.

    15a. Should foreign people suspected of being terrorists be given the presumption of innocence?
    15b. Should foreign people suspected of terrorists be flown to U.S. detention facilities on foreign soil and tortured into confessing without regard for true innocence or guilt?

    The question was designed to get people to say Gitmo torture is fine with me. It was completely loaded and leading.

  10. bobbo says:

    Scott–you are right as rain about #15==it is biased as initially presented. You didn’t change it in your review, you correctly identified and corrected the bias. Well done.

    Now lets go to what I saw that prompted my comment. (Let the continuing agreement roll?)

    Take your comments regarding Question #10==you don’t reproduce the actual #10 that is in the survey. You created your own leading question but somehow use that as a criticism of the form? Doesn’t make sense. Much better to do what you just did: quote the actual language used and show its bias.

    Can you do that with #10. I’ll look at it myself: xxxx. hmmm! Interesting because I think this does raise my own bias. I can “quibble” with the word choice, but is it bias to be “in the ballpark” about what the real issue is? Any “plan” will restrict choice and that is a type of control—what do you think?

  11. bobbo,

    Here’s my analysis of question 10. First, Hillary Clinton, especially during the presidential primary, had actually become red-flag word. Most people, at that time at least, and possibly still, either love or hate Ms. Clinton. I’m not sure why. My feelings for her are luke warm. However, any association with Ms. Clinton is likely to start any self-respecting republican down the road of disagreement with anything she says.

    But, even ignoring the silly lead in to the question. Let’s get to the question itself.

    Do you support efforts to give government control of your health care costs and choices?

    There are a number of problems with this question. First, there is the loaded assumption that socialized medicine will take away your choices. It will cause the government to make the choices for you.

    This is far from the case. Right now, with privatized medicine, I cannot go to the doctor of my choice. I must go to a doctor in my plan or pay through the nose for the privilege of making my own choice.

    So, at present, I do not really get to choose. Instead, I let my insurance company choose for me. Or, when given a choice of insurance, I can at least attempt to get a plan in which my most important doctors participate. That is the extent of my choice.

    If the government ran the plan, the great majority of doctors in the nation, with the exception of a very small number who cater only to the extremely wealthy who pay cash, would instantly become available to me.

    Further, at present, many people do not even have the choice to go to a doctor’s office. These individuals are left getting care only when they require a trip to the emergency room. So, to make the assumption that socialized medicine takes away one’s choices loads the question and leads one toward a resounding NO for the answer.

    However, a little thought about the real situation in the country today might provide a very different answer. Consider that many people are currently locked into their present jobs, if they are lucky enough to have one that provides health care. This is because switching jobs in many cases will result in new health care that may limit coverage for preexisting conditions.

    In such cases, not only are one’s health care choices limited by their insurance company, so are his/her job choices.

    So, you see, this question too is very loaded with assumptions and leading toward the answer that the repugnicans want you to give. Enough such responses and the repugnicans can easily claim a mandate against socialized medicine.

  12. bobbo says:

    hahah. SCOTT!!!! You didn’t an analyze the statement for balance, you just issued forth your own bias. And that is what makes this effort such a two way street.

    Re Hilary–if she was a red flag for Repugs, she was a rallying point for Dems? So–is that bias?==or just a good “identifier?” ((My feelings are moderately COLD–I think she’s a scummy politicians who lies for political advantage and money. a tad bit more than all the rest. Yes, its a saving grace she panders to the common man. But she’s still a puke and would turn even more conservative to get a higher office.))

    As you say, every plan has “control.” In a gov plan your access to “any” doctor would be limited by his availability==but here we are arguing about the pro’s and con’s of what we both assume the plan would like like RATHER THAN analyzing the bias of the question.

  13. bobbo,

    If you don’t believe it’s a loaded question to make the statement that the government will take control of your health care choices then we will have to simply agree to disagree. I find that highly loaded.

    Regarding Hillary, regardless of whether she is a rallying point for dems or a red flag for reps, she is entirely irrelevant to the question, no?

  14. bobbo says:

    Regarding Hillary, regardless of whether she is a rallying point for dems or a red flag for reps, she is entirely irrelevant to the question, no? /// NO. Those who care might know the scope/type of program Hilary was “pushing” for as the question states ((“pushing” is a loaded word in my view as if the Congress and/or President would be against it?)) and so again, just by happy coincident, Hilary becomes an “identifier” for the types of changes called for.

    Another, wholly different question would be: “Do you think there should be any changes to the way health care is delivered in America?”–that seems too vague to me to provide any important/relevant information. Its too open ended.

  15. Says: says:

    Well you mentioned that section 9 does not give you any room for a significant reply….I beg the differ…”Please see attached page(s)” Depending on how big your handwriting is, I think you can fit it in. I just got my survey today and decided to add a few pages to the back of the survey before returning it :)

  16. Says,

    Great idea. More power to you.

  17. pjmcflur says:

    It would be funny to edit this and send it back.

    Do you approve of the job Bush is doing?

    -NO.
    -HELL NO.
    -GET HIM THE HELL OUTTA HERE!
    -ALL OF THE ABOVE

  18. [...] like this for a bit. And, the thing is, they’ve been sending these out for years. And to many, many left-wing [...]

  19. [...] like this for a bit. And, the thing is, they’ve been sending these out for years. And to many, many left-wing [...]

  20. I’ll leave this pingback here. For anyone who goes to IMAO’s site though and reads Basil’s name calling, note the last reply I attempted to post on his site. Clearly when confronted with serious questions backed up with credible links, he resorts to simply deleting the post. Or, perhaps I’ve just been blacklisted. I tried again in case I forgot to hit submit. It didn’t even show as pending. Nice.

    Here’s a transcript of what transpired on his site. I’d note that he did not actually reply to my posts but instead inserted his own comments so that no one could simply read my posts at face value without getting his opinions mixed in.

    Here was my first post on Basil’s site. Note that in this case, the italics are me quoting Basil. This comment actually went over fairly well on his site, giving me some encouragement that I might get a real debate there.

    Now, I certainly appreciate the appearance that they really care about what I think. But, I did a little checking on the Interwebz, and find they’ve been doing silly stuff like this for a bit. And, the thing is, they’ve been sending these out for years. And to many, many left-wing idiots.

    Call me an idiot if you like, but I’m not the one sticking with a party that left my ideals long ago. I don’t like either the Repugnicans or the Democraps. But, the repugs have left their core constituency a long long time ago. The borrow and bomb repukes are actually now less fiscally conservative than the tax and spend liberals, though there are few true liberals out there today just as their are few true conservatives out there today.

    The neocons have taken over the repugnican party and the democraps have become quite far right of center themselves. In fact, the whole nation has moved so far right that most people can’t even see the center anymore. Take a look at this graph of where the 2008 presidential candidates fall on the political compass, an interesting test that I recommend everyone take to find out where they really stand. You may be surprised.

    http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

    For my part, I happen to be both farther left and more socially liberal than Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, and the Dalai Lama. So calling me an extremist doesn’t bother me. Calling Obama left of center when he isn’t does bother me though.

    This next comment did not go over as well. Perhaps I was a tad extreme in this comment. However, note that I acknowledged in my first post there that my views are extreme. Note that in this second post, Basil replies (in italics) within my own post with a bunch of name calling and no significant or serious debate.

    So, since I’m on a conservative site, for a very big change for me, what does everyone here think of the fact that the Bushes have run this country into the ground with debt* aided by Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush in deregulating everything hand over fist while both parties stuck with Reagan’s failed gush-up-economic policy long past the time anyone should have known that it was, exactly as Papa Bush said, voodoo economics?

    * Papa Bush doubled the debt in just four years. W took a bit longer and didn’t quite manage to double it, but came close.

    BTW, no matter who is in office for the foreseeable future, W has already raised your taxes. You’re just not paying for his folly just yet. But, you will. The bills must be paid … unless the U.S. declares bankruptcy. This is where the democraps have been more fiscally conservative. At least in recent years, they’ve mostly recognized that bills must be paid. Though that is not necessarily fiscally conservative, it is more so than the borrow and bomb philosophy of the repugnicans.

    Too bad the democraps killed the party I actually liked, the Liberal party. Now I have to support (by default) those who killed my party since they’re at least less bad (or more accurately, less good at being bad) than the others.

    [Since you are a batsh*t crazy liberal, we have already decided your entire premise is wrong. I did provide a link to your blog in my post, so that if anyone wants to know anything you have to say, they'll click on it and read your nonsense.

    If I was Frank (who pays for this Website), I'd tell you to quit leeching off this Website to spout your nonsense. But then, being a liberal, that's all you know how to do. But I'm not Frank, so I won't. Oh, I did post this at my own Website (which I do pay for), so don't run over there to spout your nonsense. It'd be a bad business decision, since I have nowhere near the traffic Frank gets. But, if you knew anything about business, you wouldn't be a liberal. - B]

    BTW, does anyone really care whether he or anyone else pays for the site? If one puts one’s opinions out on the web, one must expect commentary on them, and not all from people who agree. One should really develop a thick skin before blogging.

    I probably should have stopped when the owner of the thread resorted to name-calling without disputing a single point of mine. However, I tried again, don’t ask why. Again, the italics are his reply, such as it is, within my own post.

    I should have known better than to ask a serious question on a right-wing site. I actually was not trying to be obnoxious at all. I was trying to have a conversation. I guess you wouldn’t know about that. If I’m batsh*t and crazy, why not explain your position instead of calling me names. Oh well. I guess I won’t get any insight into the right wing mind set here.

    [For those following along: What passes for a "serious question" by a liberal is something that fits their small mindset. Liberals have opinions that they state as fact, and if you reject their premise, you don't want a serious discussion.

    Why are liberals that way? It's not just liberals; it's batsh*t crazy people, of which liberals are a subset. - B]

    This last was my final attempt to have a real debate with Basil. It was deleted on his site rather than answered. I guess right-wing extremists can’t take reading substantiated data that challenge their world views. Wait, scratch that. Most people can’t take reading substantiated data that challenge their world views. I wonder if he read it at all or simply blacklisted me based on the prior response.

    Basil,

    I notice that you prefer to not even leave my own post untouched and then simply reply to it. Would you mind actually disputing the facts as I have given them then?

    Would you dispute that George H.W. Bush doubled the national debt from $2T to $4T in just four years?
    Would you dispute that George W. Bush raised the national debt from $5.7T to $9.9T during his term?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

    Do you dispute that Phil Grahm pushed for and Clinton signed the law that overturned Glass-Steagle?
    Do you dispute that the banking crisis had a lot to do with the fact that when investments went bad, we were stuck bailing out banks that were now also investment firms?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act

    Do you think that FDIC insured banks would have gone under if they were not also brokerage firms? I do not state this as fact, but it is my strong belief that banks not invested in risky investments would not have failed.

    Do you dispute that George H.W. Bush while campaigning against Reagan in 1980 called supply-side economics “voodoo economics”?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_economics#Theoretical_justification

    Do you dispute that the economic policies in effect since Ronald Reagan have dramatically increase the income disparity in the United States (hence my term gush-up economics, in case that wasn’t clear)?

    http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=957

    Which of the things I stated as facts in my post do you dispute? I would be genuinely curious to know.

    Thus far, all you’ve done is call me names. Do you really believe this will convince anyone of your points?

    I have now backed up my claims with fairly impartial links. I did not go to the Huffington Post for my information, but mostly stuck with wikipedia, which has repeatedly been ranked as the equal of Encyclopedia Britannica, despite occasional inaccuracies in both.

    http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

    Yes, I made the mistake of actually backing up my statements. This is against the rules, apparently. Or, at least it must be if one is to believe the twisted set of misinformation that is doled out by Faux News, Rush Limbaugh, Annthrax, and the like. Oops. Now I’ve resorted to name calling. However, if someone wants to cite a point made by Annthrax (Coulter, in case that wasn’t obvious), I’ll gladly dispute the point. Or, if it actually has any merit, I will acknowledge it.

    Those who’ve read my blog for any length of time do know that I am willing to admit when I’m wrong. I just need the proof before I acknowledge it.

    So, Basil, if you have the guts, and the data, feel free to join in a real debate. Otherwise, you really should engage in a little introspection to determine just why it is you blog.

  21. From IMAO again:

    # Dave says:
    August 17th, 2009 at 1:21 am

    Our lefty troll friend should also realize this is not a serious site, this is a humor site. There are lots of places of on the internet where serious conservatives propose real, conservative solutions to America’s real problems. This is not one of them.

    Here, we just make fun of lefties and advocate nuking the moon.

    Thanks for clearing that up Dave. Too bad I can’t acknowledge it as Basil has, in an act of severe cowardliness, blacklisted me from his site. Please if anyone from IMAO reads this, inform Basil that I have indeed posted this here. He should know. I can’t tell him because with a pingback, no email is required, and as I’ve said, I’m blacklisted.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: