Congratulations to this week’s Comment Contest winner — Elizabeth Martin.
Those who lament the ongoing destruction of rights and freedom in America often point to politicians and judges who apparently are incapable of understanding the plain, simple English in the United States Constitution. We all saw one horrendous example of that last Thursday, when the Chief Justice tortured all logic, reason and language to twist his way into supporting Obamacare. But today, I’m pleased to report that in New York, there is at least one judge who may actually have a copy of the Constitution and who appears to have read it.
Fed. Judge Rules Churches Can Stay in Schools for Now
A federal district judge says the city can’t evict churches that have been renting space for Sunday worship services. It’s the latest in a case that has gone back and forth between different courts, with a different result each time — but ultimately little change.
District judge Loretta Preska issued an injunction that allows religious groups to continue to worship in public schools.
Lawyers for the church groups argued that since schools allow student groups to hold prayer meetings and other religious activities on site, it should not be denied to church group when school is not in session.
Judge Preska on Friday again agreed with them and upheld their right to worship.
I don’t dare predict what some judge in a higher court will rule one day, but Judge Preska got it exactly correct.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The New York and other states’ laws or rules that prohibit religious organizations from using or worshiping on public property are all based on the big lie that the words above don’t guarantee freedom of religion but freedom from religion. It’s a lie that’s been pushed on America for far too long and I’ve never understood how anyone who got through the sixth grade could not see that it’s a lie.
Laws like those in New York violate not one, not two, but three separate parts of the First Amendment, quoted above.
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Congress, and by extension all government, may not favor one religion over another or prohibit the practice of any religion. Even Scientology.
Can government force everyone pray in school? No. Can they stop everyone from praying in school? No. Want to put the Ten Commandments on the wall of your courthouse? Fine, provided you don’t try to stop someone else from putting their commandments, or whatever, on the wall, too. It’s simple. Equal access, equal freedom to all.
2. or abridging the freedom of speech
Clearly prayer is speech. Do I really need to explain any further?
3. or the right of the people peaceably to assemble
Again, pretty simple. If your group wants to peaceably assembly in a school classroom once a week to worship L. Rom Hubbard, green aliens, Norse Gods, or anything else, and you can pay the rental fee, why is it the business of anyone else? You can even gather and discuss the non-existence of a deity to your heart’s content in the classroom next door if that’s your thing. Equal access, equal freedom.
The beauty of the Constitution the Founders gave us is that it provides the greatest amount of freedom to the citizens of the nation.
I understand the selfish and greedy and evil reasons why some people want to limit or take away that freedom.
I don’t understand why so many of us have let them do it for so long.
The Founders would long ago have taken up arms and shot the bastards.
We sit around watching Jersey Shore and Dancing with the Stars.
By now you’ve heard or read that the Supreme Court essentially upheld Obamacare. They did it by first telling Congress they can’t force you to buy health insurance or anything else. But they can tax you for not buying health insurance.
See the difference?
No. I don’t either.
By converting the mandate to buy insurance into a tax for not buying it, the Court told Congress they can tax you for not doing something Congress wants you to do.
Apparently, five of Justices thought this was a perfectly reasonable interpretation of what the Founders intended when they penned the Constitution.
What’s the next thing we’ll be taxed for not buying?
Let’s look at some hypothetical future taxes Congress could well decide to impose:
$$$ Any adult citizen who does not own a late-model, General Motors automobile or truck will have to pay an annual tax of $500. Late model is defined as less than six years old.
$$$ Anyone who does not buy a pair of Nike sneakers each year will be taxed $130.
$$$ All adults who don’t own a smartphone will incur an annual tax of $690
$$$ All taxpayers who do not purchase at least one round-trip airline ticket annually must pay a “non-support of the airline industry” tax of $999.
$$$ All families that cannot provide per-person proof of purchase of 1460 servings of fruit and 1460 servings of vegetables will incur a healthcare offset tax of $1500 per family member.
I could go on and on and on, but you see the point.
The Supreme Court essentially declared freedom of choice dead in America. Or maybe not dead, but taxable.
Can’t you just see all the heads in Washington spinning with visions of all the taxes they can impose, now that you can be taxed for not buying something…or anything?
The conversion of America to socialism, which FDR began in the 1930s, is nearly complete, now.
Comments? Or not.
Does it really matter anymore what any of us “little people’ think?
The correct answer to how we get our rights is, of course, by being born. Some would say our rights are secured at the moment of conception and I wouldn’t argue the point — the point being, our rights are given to us by God or by Nature, depending upon whether you believe in the former or not.
This simple, most inconvenient of truths for those in government, was well-known to the Founders, who made it crystal clear in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness…
My guess is that, if you are reading this blog post, you already knew that. But I’d also guess that most of the people you know don’t know, that they believe our rights are granted by our Constitution. So let me get to the point of today’s blog post.
I think it is incumbent upon those of us who do understand the truth of the matter to gently remind others, especially those in the media, whenever we read or hear them refer to “Constitutional rights.” We need to remind them that rights granted by a Constitution can be taken away by changing the Constitution as opposed to our rights, which can never be taken from us, only suppressed and denied by the power of government guns.
Whenever you encounter someone in media referring to “Constitutional rights,” please, take a few minutes to send them an email or a letter asking that they alter their language in the future to help educate folks about the true nature and source of our rights. Take your friends and relatives aside when you hear then make the mistake and spend a minute respectfully reminding them. And by all means, talk to your children about rights and where they come from.
Will it make a difference in the long run? I hope so, but only time will tell. But I can say for sure that if we continue to allow ignorance to prevail, the point will become moot by the time soon-to-be-born grandson begins voting.
Researchers at a Texas university have designed a chip that could give smartphones the long-envied ability of comic book hero Superman to see through walls, clothes or other objects.
A team at University of Texas at Dallas tuned a small, inexpensive microchip to discern a “terahertz” band of the electromagnetic spectrum.
The design works with chips made using Complementary Metal-Oxide Semiconductor technology behind processors commonly found in personal computers, smartphones, televisions and videogame consoles.
“CMOS is affordable and can be used to make lots of chips,” electrical engineering professor Kenneth O said in a statement on Friday.
“The combination of CMOS and terahertz means you could put this chip and a transmitter on the back of a cell phone, turning it into a device carried in your pocket that can see through objects.”
To assuage privacy worries, the professor and his team at the Texas Analogue Center of Excellence are limiting their study to what the chips can make visible at distances of four inches (10 centimetres) or less, according to the university.
The terahertz band has wavelengths that fall between microwaves used for mobile phone signals and infrared that is employed for night vision goggles.
The chip designed by Mr O’s team detects terahertz waves and shows the resulting imagery, perhaps on a smartphone screen.
Mr O’s team highlighted potential medical uses such as enabling doctors to peer easily into patients’ bodies and practical applications along the lines of finding studs in walls.
“We’ve created approaches that open a previously untapped portion of the electromagnetic spectrum for consumer use,” Mr O said.
“There are all kinds of things you could be able to do that we just haven’t yet thought about.”
Well, I feel a lot better knowing the researchers will be “limiting their study to what the chips can make visible at distances of four inches or less.” Lord knows we wouldn’t want anyone wandering the streets taking a peek at everyone through their clothes.
Of course, once they develop the technology, I suspect there will be lots and lots of people, most of whom will be drawing government paychecks and and carrying badges, who’ll have no compunction at all about using the technology to spy on everyone on the street and in their homes. Store detectives will be using the technology to look for shoplifters…and really enjoying the work!
What? Fourth Amendment, you say? It won’t apply. “We’re not searching you,” they’ll say. “We’re just looking around. You know these goggles we wear can see through things so it’s up to you to stay out of our line of sight if you don’t want us to see you naked.”
On the plus side, girlie magazines will quickly be out of business. For that matter, so will porn sites. Why pay to look at pictures in a magazine or on your monitor when you can don your goggles and watch your neighbors getting busy.
Once this technology becomes commonplace, I think we’ll see lots of manufacturers weaving enough metal threads into their clothing lines to block the snooping. Aluminum siding will make a comeback. Other siding and roofing will begin incorporating metal particles.
You know, this new technology might well be a boon to the economy. Think of all the new jobs it will create as people clamor for new smartphones and other devices that will let them see what folks at the gym or the club or at the park really look like. Think of all the manufacturing and construction jobs it will create as the demand for the aforementioned siding and shingles skyrockets.
Professor Kenneth O and his team might well accomplish with their new technology what Our Dear Leader and his cabal have failed to do for three-plus years. And it won’t cost the taxpayers trillions of dollars.
The real question now is, do I invest in the spy goggles manufacturers or those who make the siding and roofing?
Congratulations to this week’s Comment Contest winner — Dave.
Are you being tracked? The answer, of course, is yes.
Most of us know that our Internet activities are constantly tracked in order to better serve us relevant advertising and search results. Better for the companies serving the ads and possibly the advertisers, but not necessarily better for us.
Fewer of us know that our cellphone providers track our location as a matter of course, not for any nefarious reason, but because it’s necessary to deliver their service. If they don’t know where we are, they can’t send the signal to a tower near us. The problem I and others have with such providers is that they store the information beyond what is reasonable for billing purposes.
If I have ninety days to dispute charges on my bill, then holding the information longer serves no business purpose. However, it does help to satisfy the increasing intrusive inclinations of various law enforcement agencies, which far too often these days, behave as if our natural right to privacy, enshrined in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, does not exist.
Law enforcement agencies track cellphones without warrants
In August 2011 the ACLU issued public records requests to over 380 state and local law enforcement agencies and found that virtually all of the departments that responded tracked cellphones, most without warrants.
The majority of the 200 agencies that responded engaged in some cellphone tracking. Only a handful of those said they regularly seek warrants and demonstrate probable cause before tracking cellphones, according to the ACLU report.
Most law enforcement agencies said they track phones to investigate crimes, while others said they use tracking only in emergencies like a missing persons case. Only 10 agencies said they never use cellphone tracking.
Some law enforcement agencies provided enough documentation to paint a detailed picture of cellphone tracking activities. For example, Raleigh, North Carolina, tracks hundreds of cellphones per year based on invoices from phone companies. In Wilson County, North Carolina, police obtain historical tracking data where it’s “relevant and material” to an ongoing investigation, a standard the ACLU notes is lower than probable cause.
I don’t object to the cops obtaining location information when they are investigating a crime and there is probable cause to justify it. When such is the case, they should get a search warrant and have at it.
I do object to the growing trend of “law enforcement” at all levels taking it upon themselves to decide what is relevant and what is not, essentially becoming judge and jury during their investigation.
Yes, they have to make decisions about who and what and why. But who’s to say if those decisions are based on something reasonable or a baseless hunch about someone who rubbed the officer the wrong way, perhaps by not being deferential enough when they were interviewed.
With power comes responsibility. Far too many in government and especially in “law enforcement” seem to live for the power and ignore the responsibility.
We have judges and a warrant system for a reason. Instead of shrugging or making excuses, it’s high time we begin punishing those we entrust with power who ignore or circumvent the law through laziness or for any other reason.
So, now that they are fresh in your mind, please take a minute and ponder this — did you notice something about how the Founders thought about rights that is very different from how many, perhaps most Americans think about rights today?
[Cue Jeopardy music]
Time’s up. The answer I was looking for is this:
The Founders considered rights to be things granted by God or nature. With one exception, nobody had to give them to you. They were yours at birth. The exception is when government wants to take away a right, such as your freedom or your property, government must put the matter before a jury of other citizens, who can tell the government “no.” All the others, including those referenced but not enumerated in Article IX and Article X, are yours because you are human.
Taken together, those “natural rights” mean you can do what you want, how you want, with or without whomever you want, provided you do not step on the rights of someone else.
Contrast that view of rights with some of the “rights” we talk about today. Many, inside government and out, maintain we all have a right to housing and health care and food and clothes and myriad other things, including the “right” to never feel bad. And the difference between all the new “rights” and those the Founders talk about is that the new ones all have to be provided by someone else, at someone else’s expense.
Certainly, we all have the right to obtain heath care and housing and designer jeans if we can get them, but nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have to make sure I get them. Yet, today, virtually all decisions made in government revolve around giving some people things at the expense of others, even if those others are our children and grandchilden.
We’ve stopped paying attention to our true rights and they have been slowly taken from us. We’ve allowed others to discover new rights and to force us to pay for them. As a nation, we’ve become stupid and selfish and lazy and self-destructive and we continue to celebrate all of it.
I can see the future. Many others do, too, and it’s not pretty.
Personally, I blame Philo T. Farnsworth, Digital Equipment Corporation, and Steve Jobs.
The American system of trial by jury is often touted as the best possible means of dispensing justice. Certainly, that is the message of the short, 659-word column excerpted and linked below. And, certainly, that was once true. But that is no longer the case, and hasn’t been for a very long time.
Please take a few minutes to read it. See if you notice the same things that trouble me.
Judging the potential jury
It is the crazy, beautiful circus at the heart of the American justice system. Listen closely to a criminal trial jury selection and you learn a lot about the burdens, fears, foibles, and remarkable strengths of your fellow citizens. You hear profiles in courage and, from scattered artful dodgers, profiles in convenience. Above all you hear the solemn determination of ordinary folk to be fair.
On Monday morning, the jury pool gathered in Courtroom 18 at the Moakley Courthouse in South Boston, where US District Judge William G. Young presides. Young has an evangelist’s devotion to the jury system. In speeches to new jurors, he always calls it “the most vital expression of direct democracy that exists anywhere on the planet.”
He patiently explained why this pool of about 50 nervous souls were gathered. A man named Calvin Dedrick had been charged with gun and drug crimes. They alone could decide if he was guilty.
Then it was time to cull the group to 12 jurors and two alternates.
How appropriate the author chose the word “cull” to describe the jury selection process because, like culling a herd of animals, people are culled from the jury pool. Of course, with jurors, weakness and bad health have little to do with it. But undesirable traits have everything to do with it. Leading the list of undesirable traits are independent thinking and an unwillingness to do as you are told.
When the judge asked the man if he could find the defendant guilty even though the man believed drugs should be legal, he was really asking the man if he could put aside his conscience and do as he’s told. He’s telling the man his sole job as a juror is to decide if a law was broken. And that is a lie, one judges across the nation tell with daily regularity.
And what kind of person would vote against his own conscience?
While part of a juror’s job is to judge whether a law has been broken, it is also their job to decide if the law is constitutional, reasonable, and being applied in a reasonable manner in the case at hand.
The judge was asking that potential juror if he could find Calvin Dedrick guilty and send him off to prison merely for having a gun and/or for possessing and/or selling drugs, which the juror rightly believed should be legal. The judge was looking for people who could convict despite the fact that all laws restricting possession of firearms and of possessing and selling drugs are clearly unconstitutional. Of course, the judge would not be telling them that. It’s his job to keep the cops and prosecutors working, the prisons full, and himself employed.
“…you could understand Young’s great faith in these randomly selected, moderately vetted citizens.”
Jury pools may be randomly selected today, but Judge Young’s “great faith” in them rests on them being anything but “moderately vetted” as his questioning shows. He wants a jury who can be led, like sheep; a jury that will not question the law or anything else he tells them.
If the jury’s only job was truly to decide whether or not a law was broken, we would not even need a jury. A computer could do it.
“Our whole moral authority depends on the people we’re bringing up here,” Young said. In Courtroom 18, that authority was quite sound.
Judge Young was correct. A court’s moral authority does depend on the people they select. And once, that moral authority was sound. No longer. Juries packed with people who are willing to convict despite their personal beliefs are not juries at all. They’re human robots. And they are not dispensing justice.
In my courtroom, were I ever to sit in Judge Young’s chair, potential jurors would be asked
1) Do you in any way know or are you in any way related to any of the parties involved in this case?
Then I’d excuse those with long-standing vacation plans, health issues, etc.
Then twelve would be chosen at random as jurors and two as alternates.
Then we’d have some real justice.
What do you think?
Am I crazy? Do we need and want judges to “cull” jurors who are independent thinkers?
Is privacy passé? It certainly seems so. People, young and old, put every detail of their lives on Facebook, post videos on YouTube without regard to how it makes them look, and offer a “who cares” shrug when told about stories like these two, which appeared on the same page of the paper Monday.
As drones spread, privacy issues grow [Excerpts]
… Thousands of hobbyists are taking part in what has become a global do-it-yourself drone subculture, a pastime that is thriving as the Federal Aviation Administration seeks to make the skies friendlier to unmanned aircraft of all sizes.
The use of drones in the United States by law enforcement and other government agencies has privacy advocates on edge. …
… Whether with a border patrol drone the size of a single-engine passenger plane or a four-rotor police “quadcopter’’ equipped with gear to intercept cellphone signals, the increasing ease of aerial surveillance seems destined to be put to a constitutional test on privacy.
“Our concern is with all of the drones,’’ said Jennifer Lynch, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Small aircraft are hard to see, and large drones can fly high enough to stay out of sight, she said. “I think they all pose different levels of privacy risk.’’…
Every e-mail to your child. Every status update for your friends. Every message to your mistress.
The government of the United Kingdom is preparing proposals for a nationwide electronic surveillance network that could potentially keep track of every message sent by any Brit to anyone at any time, an industry official briefed on the government’s moves said Sunday.
Plans for a massive government database of the country’s phone and e-mail traffic were abandoned in 2008 following a public outcry. But James Blessing of the Internet Service Providers’ Association said the government appears to be “reintroducing it on a slightly different format.’’
A Home Office spokesman insisted that any new surveillance program would not involve prying into the content of e-mails or voice conversations.
“It’s not about the content,’’ the official said, speaking anonymously in line with office policy. “It’s about the who, what, where, and when.’’
Of course it’s about the content. What good is knowing that Joe called Abdulla or Ravi emailed Susie if you don’t know what was said?
There are some who say that in the United States, the NSA already filters all email or phone calls or both, looking for certain keywords and phrases. Maybe they do or maybe they don’t but the fact that they are building a huge new complex in Utah is making a lot of people a lot more nervous.
I’m old enough to remember when privacy was something most people expected. But too many of us for too long kept joining the ranks of the shoulder shruggers and allowed the very idea of privacy to become an anachronism.
I’m still one of the old guard who protects my privacy as best I can. But it gets more difficult every day. My grown children seem to have acclimated themselves to lives with minimal privacy and I fully expect when my grandson is born in July, he will one day live in a world where, if privacy is paid any lip service at all, it will apply only to the bedroom and bathroom. And maybe not even there.
How do you feel about privacy?
Are you comfortable with all your life being “out there” for public consumption?
Are you prepared to trust businesses and government with all the details of your life?
And if you’re like me, what measures do you take to protect your privacy?
How many laws do you break every day? None, you say. Think again. There are so many laws, rules, and regulations –80,000 new ones were passed by the feds just last year alone — that it seems impossible to do much of anything these days without running afoul of one of them.
A client sent me a link to this video of a TV report by John Stossel, perhaps the only network reporter who really gives a damn about America its citizens.
The show was titled Illegal Everything and touches on raw milk, lemonade stands, videotaping police, drugs, prostitution, and more.
I challenge you to watch it and point to one person who was victimized by police and the law and explain how it was justified.
The video runs forty-two minutes so grab a cup of coffee or a glass of whatever, settle back, and prepare to be outraged at what is being done to Americans all across the nation. Or, maybe you’ll think it all makes good sense.
Either way, please let us know when the video is done.
Next week, the Supreme Court will be asked to decide if the Federal Government can compel private citizens to buy stuff.
The court will hear arguments for and against Obamacare, and freedom-loving Americans from coast-to-coast and around the globe are hoping the answer will be a rousing and decisive “NO.”
Among the many, many reasons why all Americans should vigorously oppose Obamacare is that it will financially devastate many seniors, thanks to some taxes that traitors-to-freedom Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid made sure were in the bloated bill nobody could read until they voted for it.
Grover Norquist, the President of Americans for Tax Reform wrote a short Op/Ed that outlines the five most serious tax consequences for America’s seniors if Obamacare is not overturned.
The five tax hikes in Obamacare that most hurt seniors
The jobs-killing Obamacare law contains 20 new or higher taxes on American families and employers. Many of these tax increases fall on families making less than $250,000 — a direct violation of candidate Obama’s promise not to raise “any form” of taxes on these families. In less than a week, the third anniversary of Obamacare being signed into law will take place. The Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments about the constitutionality of Obamacare next week.
Out of the 20 new or higher taxes in Obamacare, there are five that fall most directly on seniors.
The first is the excise tax penalty for failure to comply with Obamacare’s individual mandate. Many seniors face a coverage gap between retirement and Medicare eligibility. Obamacare raises taxes on these younger seniors by punishing them if they don’t purchase “qualifying health insurance.” Set to go into effect in 2014, the excise tax penalty for mandate non-compliance will in 2016 rise to 2.5% of adjusted gross income for a senior couple (or $1,390 for those making less than $55,600).
Obamacare will leave many seniors counting pennies...if they're lucky.
Why does Obamacare raise taxes on seniors just as they are entering retirement? Many of these seniors will face this “stick” but find themselves with too much income to qualify for the “carrot” of tax credits to purchase Obamacare health insurance plans in an exchange. Many will be forced to keep working just to avoid paying this tax.
The second tax hike on seniors is the so-called “Cadillac Plan” excise tax. Starting in 2018, Obamacare imposes a whopping 40% excise tax on high-cost (“Cadillac plan”) health insurance plans. This is defined for seniors as a plan whose premiums exceed $29,450 for a family plan, or $11,500 for a single senior. Seniors often face higher costs in health insurance premiums due to chronic health conditions and other risk factors. This tax will fall almost exclusively on the seniors with the greatest health insurance needs.
Third is Obamacare’s dividends tax hike. Starting in 2013, the top tax rate on dividends is scheduled to rise from 15% today to 39.6%. In addition, Obamacare imposes a dividend “surtax” of 3.8% on families making more than $250,000 per year. That would create a top dividend tax rate of 43.4%, nearly triple today’s rate. This will fall very hard on seniors. According to the Tax Foundation’s analysis of IRS data, 70% of households over age 55 receive dividend income. Seventy-one percent of all dividends paid flow to these households. To raise taxes on dividends is to raise taxes on seniors.
Then there’s the medical device excise tax. Obamacare imposes a new excise tax on medical device manufacturers in 2013. These companies will surely build the cost of this new tax into the price of what they sell. Who buys medical devices? Who buys pacemakers, wheelchairs and other costly medical devices? Seniors do.
Finally, Obamacare reduces allowable medical itemized deductions. Under current law, medical itemized deductions can be claimed on tax returns, but they must be reduced by 7.5% of adjusted gross income. Obamacare increases this “haircut” to 10% of AGI in 2013. This will mean that millions of Americans claiming medical itemized deductions will no longer be able to. The same IRS data as above tells us that 60% of all tax filers claiming this deduction are over age 55.
All of the tax increases in Obamacare will hurt seniors, but these five fall on them directly and hardest.
Did Obama and his henchmen set out to deliberately penalize seniors for getting old? Or were they just too stupid or blinded by ideology to recognize the consequences of what they foisted upon America? Did it occur to them that not all seniors with dividend income are wealthy, that some simply live comfortably in retirement and others just scrape by even with their dividends and that confiscating forty percent of it might make the difference between eating three meals a day and two…or one?
It took 232 years for the nation to elect a president arrogant enough to presume he is not just another inexperienced, megalomaniacal politician, but some kind of royalty who doesn’t lead the nation but rules it.
Whether the Supreme Court decides according to the Constitution, as the Founders intended, or further twists and rips it to squeeze out another fantastical, never-before-noticed government power, we still have one more chance to save the nation come November. Sadly, it does not look like it will be in the presidential election, where Republicans appear determined to nominate the weakest possible candidate to face Our Dear Leader.
The only real hope is that the Tea Movement — notice we don’t hear much about them in the national media anymore — can help elect enough new members of Congress and the Senate to overthrow Obamacare and set the nation back on the road to prosperity.
I know some folks will say I’m dreaming, but for many Americans, the dream is all they have left.
Comment Contest Winners # = Repeat winner
For the week ending
1/29 Leonard Barnes2 2/5 Pat
2/12 Brogan1 2/19 Stephanie
2/26 Scott Schluter
3/5 Storm4 3/12 Donna C.
3/26 Becky Holm
4/30 Brogan1 5/7 Blue_Sky
5/14 Drill Sgt K.
6/25 Woody3 7/2 Christie
7/9 Candace Delaney
7/16 No responses!
7/23 Rob Andrews
7/30 George Deas
8/6 Vinny V
9/17 Leonard Barnes2 9/24 Kathy
11/5 Kentucky Kid
11/26 Woody3 12/3 Leanne
12/10 Gina Jackson
12/31 charles scamman
1/7/12 Gloria Meyer
1/14 Liz Gavaza
2/4 Phillip Dukes
2/11 Storm4 2/18 Leslie
3/3 Debby Rich
3/17 Carolyn McBride
3/24 Keith Hodges
3/31 Jeffrey C. Anthony
4/7 Sue Reynolds
4/14 No responses!
5/5 No responses!
5/19 Estes Mills
6/16 Chip Johnson
6/30 Elizabeth Martin
7/21 K Howe
8/4 Will you be this week's winner?