Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Posts Tagged ‘“How many fiscal agents does it take to ____ (solve a problem | set up (or avoid setting up) a nonprofit?

So Many Web Addresses End “.org,” Even This One. But Notice Which Entity, If Any, Is Behind Each, How Transparent, Who’s Backing It. RE: ‘EJUSA.org’ and ‘TheAppeal.org’: One of Those Makes You Work Much Harder Than The Other to Find Its Owners/Backers. [Draft: Feb. 24, Published April 13, 2020].

leave a comment »

LGH Update from about Feb. 24 (this post drafted) to mid-April, 2020 (this post soon to be published):

I have been without any functional laptop for about one and a half months, and so am picking up where I left off.  Meanwhile, global and individual restrictions upon travel, movement outside the home, between homes for people who may have more than one, doing business, assembling peaceably in even small groups, and even shopping for what some may NOT call necessities, have been restricted in the name of global health and safety due to the scare-word “coronoavirus.”  Compressing my take on large topics and events between the start and completion of this post into a small space involves some long sentences (that’s how I think) in the interest of speed of output.  Further compression = takes more time. Meanwhile, as all we all know a global COVID-19 / Coronavirus pandemic has been announced, governments and (US) Governors are issuing executive orders about shut-downs like it’s going out of style, and the economy is in an obvious “re-boot” situation.  While I’ve already, for years now, had to socially isolate for personal safety (for all but the most meaningful connections) as a (female) domestic violence and family court survivor and recent California emigrant (to another state), the public-place, business restrictions further directly cross-cut my planned work activities, i.e., most promising lines of work, most of which involve personal, face-to-face interaction with clients. Moreover, normal casual interactions in public with other human beings has been a sought-out commodity in this estranged from the mainstream lifestyle I’ve found myself in.

However, in the extra thought- and reading, news-media consuming time made available by having public places (libraries, gyms, wifit hotspots (often small retail places), not to mention houses of worship) shut down suddenly, I found my prior drill-downs on the major expansion of HHS (NIH, etc.) funding and the vast loopholes in its database accountability, as well as the population control and “RCTs”** habitually run upon the US public to be good at least psychological and mental preparation for this, although like many, I will have to re-boot my own life and resources plans for both short- and long-term future accordingly.  (**”RCTs” – Randomized Clinical Trials: first for drugs, later for almost any behavioral modification tactics, i.e., socio-economic pilot tests of proposed initiatives all geared to better control the populace). At least one starting point I now have is a functional computer which survives the “reboot process” intact and even works afterwards.  I also chose a wider screen.  

Directly addressing my point of view on the pandemic situation may not happen on this blog, but I’m considering starting another, as I’ll bet it’s no more the common, mainstream view than this blog is of the family court matters or domestic violence.

The groundwork I did (at the time, out of basic curiosity about the ways of public/private partnerships of intruding on private lives via public policy) tracking so many HHS grants, including to the HIV/AIDS, the anti-tobacco (cancer prevention), “HiAP” (Health In All Policies, based on WHO), and continual attempts to reframe domestic violence under social science pathology for treatment through behavioral modification courses for batterers and battered women, as well as (2016-2017 approximately) a series of drill-downs on attempts to transform the US Public Education system through — naturally — big-philanthropy & Ivy League University-sponsored nonprofits, also helped me NOT be too surprised by the current shutdowns and delegation of decision-making authority to alleged health risks.

For now (one day after “Easter,” (USA), that is April 13, 2020, I’m so relieved to have a full-screen laptop with clear, in-focus visuals and not being restricted to a small cell-phone for ALL electronic communications/sociomedia, I plan to clear (by publishing) some of my existing post and page pipelines, typically several of each at any point in time. Posts are best published while the information inspiring them is fresh on my mind, which in this case, it’s not.  The basic summary points, yes, but the full drill-down (images and links) may take a while to re-cover and reconstruct.  

FYI, replacement laptop (the first in ten years) was costly and my PayPal buttons still work — but donations are not tax-deductible because I am (and this blog is) not associated with a nonprofit. I track nonprofits, I don’t set them up. Any amounts appreciated.

Stay Safe, don’t believe everything you read and regarding the military-industrial complex transformed into a medical/health/military-industrial-economic global infrastructure controlled from the top-down and outside in with the APPEARANCE of informed consent by the public through the APPEARANCE of still-relevant representative government in some parts of the world (including in the USA), …. “I told you so!”  

Below here marks where the original post began.  Thanks//LGH April 13, 2020.


[This post specifically addresses websites ending “*.org”, not websites ending *.edu or *.gov which are more commonly understood.  That governments hire others to run “*.org” websites [1],[2] may be less obvious without follow-up.]

[1] Like this one, which also cites private foundation backers starting with the Annie E. Casey Foundation, but is or has since become a poorly developed site, as its “companion site” featuring the curricula and a short-list called “our panel of marriage experts“. A website (even one called a “resource center”) is not an person or corporation, so using the word “Ourinstead of identifying what entity, by its full legal business name, is basically dishonest.  This type of dishonesty seems to come with two related purposes: stealth & sales.  

Each website has its intended audience to capture, even if the sales is of public policy justifying public expenditures which private entities may take advantage of, sometimes continuously.  The intended audience’s ATTENTION is to be captured before that attention may stray to the more relevant data:  what entity/types of entitiy is speaking here? Beyond that, in times where coordination and consolidation of philanthropic AND government resources is now commonplace, the underlying substance (networked interests) of any simple “*.org” website isn’t usually made plain on its surface.

Maybe get out a notepad or notecards or any device which could capture, help you remember, and take down a few names; I already recognize most of them and have blogged several, done drill-downs, talked about the curricula.

From the same basic domain name ending “*.org,” here’s a more coherent summary (<~URL indicates Dec. 2017) which I found through Google. It’s an easy (though a bit odd and incomplete) 14-page pdf I found just swimming through Internet Search Results, and a good starter for whoever may still NOT be familiar with the concept of Welfare Reform by Presidential Administration, amounts of grants, etc. It’d be hard to find even that partial summary starting at the main domain name “healthymarriageinfo.org“). See “[2]” inset just below.

[2] I moved my extemporaneous comments on this website to a [still in draft] page called, at first  Like SHORT summaries? Still in Denial that US Government HAS BEEN Funding Both Sides of a Gender War (Unequally?) for Over 20 Years, and That DV and Family Court Reform Organizations (and Their Local/Vocal Professionals Active on Social Media) KNOW This But Hope YOU Don’t? [Feb. 25. 2020].

Too informal to be also listed on blog sidebar, but I also plan to tweet it. As just now (late 4/13/2020 as it says) published:

This will not appear on the “Most recent Posts” widget because it’s not a post… I expect that title’s almost as long as the page; just wanted to publicize some helpful “indicators” this is taking place.

It gives some backgrounds (using that 14-page guide and quoting from it) on how the “Healthy Marriage Initiative” (not that distinguishable, really from “Responsible Fatherhood” promotion, although this website implies it is) emanated from Welfare Reform years in former President Clinton’s Administration — but in response to a Republican-controlled Congress’s Budget Blockade and under the advice of former Republican campaign strategist (called in to rescue Clinton, a fellow Rhodes Scholar) Dick Morris.

It also gives several references to major economic events of the 1980s — other than too many people divorcing — which might ALSO factor into the levels of people depending upon welfare or living in poverty.  But which it seemed advantageous for those in power to ignore in favor of a more popular, and sexist, policy.

To break that Budget blockade, both then-President Clinton and his (for a time) secret weapon, Dick Morris (and the US Congress) essentially “threw mothers under the bus” and pulled a fast one on the taxpaying public, by perpetuating both the violence prevention policies AND the misogynistic “Marriage-Promotion/Family Values/Father-engagement Policies” which — in the end, IF they were equally funded, would balance each other out and simply divert funding to the consultants, nonprofits (which could then, as they still do, habitually misplace, or form endless extra “related entities” or spinoff entities — nonprofit of course — to NOT account for their expenditures of public monies…  EVER…  As it happened (and as I’ve blogged before:  look for a post on the CADV system in Ohio) these were NOT equally funded by gender, so in the long run, single mothers remain the target (even though plenty of women separate from abusers and DO re-marry)., thus are not specifically “single.”).

I think the page interesting and informative enough to have published it.  Feel free to take a look at the above link… And know that the rest of THIS post isn’t dwelling on that topic.  I found the two other websites and related drill-downs (EJUSA.org and TheAPPEAL.org) fine illustrations of a very basic point:  DO THE DRILLDOWNS when the website sounds like it’s imitating an entity and happens to end “*.org.”  IS IT an entity or not?

If I publish further drill-downs occur on these two urls., based on work I did at the time, I expect it to be in a post sequel: this one is a start.//LGH


Websites are on-line media platforms that can and often do easily can mask who’s sponsoring them.  If you take the content seriously, take the drill-down seriously too.  

Big-bucks philanthropy (ownership) is adept at concealing or advertising its clout at will and often dangles smaller-sounding (looks like but isn’t “grassroots” or representative) bait in front of viewers.

Who’s sponsoring and how transparent any website is (self-identification, financial disclosure) when while selling or publicizing any cause, especially when soliciting funds for that cause or advertising who else important supports it (i.e., crowd-appeal) is always:

  • important to be aware of
  • good to find out in those terms if not already known, and
  • the finding out always shows key character indicators which NOT looking, generally, won’t.

The same goes for narratives telling a story and quoting experts and sometimes an associated “organization” or “group.” This post features another illustration of what can be found when you DO check.  I was checking anyway, so decided to post as well.

I ran across a simple example, and pretty simple to check up on too, the other day, when it was joyfully announced that the WHO ICD-11 would no longer be classifying “parental alienation” as a social (behavioral) disease. Search string on Twitter “WHO, Parental Alienation, ICD-11” brings up plenty, but Here’s the fowarded link I was referring to:  (a French WordPress blog, signed International Network of Activist Mothers; not all links are translated into English):

World Health Organization Removes Parental Alienation from Its Classification Index

[Para 1]: The Italian members of the Facebook group PAS: informazioni e disinformazione were the first to spread the information. [a quote, images., then Paras. 2 and 3]:

This information is an opportunity to review recent events.

In November 2019, William Bernet, President of the Parental Alienation Study Group, one of the most motivated promoters of parental alienation, reported in a newsletter, translated and distributed in France by ACALPA, on the positioning of the WHO’s Medical and Scientific Advisory Committee (MSAC). …  [Para. 4] On October 29, 2019, ….  Indeed, the mere presence of this notion, wherever it is in the Classification, would favour its instrumentalization by its promoters and its use by violent men in family courts, as recalled in the Collective Memo of Concern to: World Health Organization about « Parental Alienation ».

Vocabulary used for story-telling and journalism doesn’t necessarily match up to vocabulary for fact-checking what any referenced group or organization is, where it is, or much else about it. If the use were more consistent, we might overall be better-informed on how to fact-check and be aware which reporters are getting a “scoop” to help the media’s bottom line as opposed to straight public-interest.

REMEMBER (as my post title says): When the website features what looks like an organization name, or abbreviation of it, that may or may not be a business entity.

Without the actual business entity’s name, you don’t know “squat” about the neutrality and can hardly follow the funding behind it.  Start looking and notice how few actually do post, transparently, complete an d current financials with easy range or readers.

Can we agree that, whatever the name, the mere existence of a website and a domain name that may sound like a business name doesn’t tell most of any story about the platform worth hearing. We need to look further, and ought to, regularly.


This is the post I predicted (or threatened?) to write in my next-to-last post Feb. 12, 2020, calling attention to consolidating (buying and selling of, concentrating purposes of for maximum profits) media companies and the importance of paying attention to the context — the window-frames — of whichever one you’re on, and to platform and brand ownership over time.  I’ve been raising this point for years.

On that post (full title & link on next inset), I also raised it after a long “Opening Spiel” summarizing basic family court, welfare reform, domestic violence organization infrastructure issues, with examples and names of key centers, publications, universities and professionals involved.  Generally, fewer (the further one goes back in time) than you might think:

That recent (Feb. 12, 2020) post mentioned but didn’t focus on nonprofits as media platforms. Today’s post, that you’re reading now, focuses more on how to check up whether nonprofits are involved, and if so, on checking them out.

Read the rest of this entry »

EVERYCRSReport.com: Project of Demand Progress (a 501©3 + 501©4 each w/ fiscal agent~New Venture Fund (formerly Arabella Legacy Fund), Sixteen Thirty Fund), the R Street Institute (formerly DC Progress). So, Will the Real Sponsors Step Out from behind their Fiscal Agents, WITH NameTags, or Shall I Continue Outing Them?) [Last revised Sept.11, published “As-Is” Sept. 21, 2017]

leave a comment »

 Notice the Last Revised, Published and “As-Is” dates added to this post title!

EVERYCRSReport.com: Project of Demand Progress (a 501©3 + 501©4 each w/ fiscal agent~New Venture Fund (formerly Arabella Legacy Fund), Sixteen Thirty Fund), the R Street Institute (formerly DC Progress). So, Will the Real Sponsors Step Out from behind their Fiscal Agents, WITH NameTags, or Shall I Continue Outing Them?) [Last revised Sept.11, published “As-Is” Sept. 21, 2017] (case-sensitive short-link ends “-7zh”).

I just, mid-September, added a new page, and a post introducing the new page, not particularly focused on this topic, but instead on Collaborative Justice Courts, or how California at least worked over some decades to turn the courts into “problem-solving” justice system, and who (such as the Center for Court Innovation in New York, the National Center for State Courts, and as it turns out when considering “Government:  The Final Frontier” and whether the courts are better off like universities, as “loosely-coupled organizations” (a 2013 publication) with the help of Harvard Kennedy School of Government) has been helping this happen.

Returning now, later, to posts in the pipeline (i.e., in draft), I see this one I last worked on 9/11/2017 has major show and tell elements already in place and uploaded.  I remember working hard on it, and with some incredulity as the inter-relationships developed from such a simple, basic website as “EVERYCRS.com.”

So I rate this one “pretty damn good,” if not fully complete (fully complete would continue exploring the relationship with the Global Fund found by looking up a little (?) LLC grantee hiding (sic) in a field of other ones which just happens to have been run by one of the extended Kennedy clan. One of the earlier, colorfully annotated images gets right into this.  I also could’ve done more image uploads, or further pursued some of the many names which surfaced just looking at that single website.

My purpose is stated within the posts. We need to examine the “windowframes” of on-line information better, and do some of the drill-downs.  This will reveal relationships, and often leads to things you may not have had a clue about before, or other insights into ones you did.  I’m not likely to continue researching the exact topics and organizations here in the near future and so am publishing “as is.”  I again hope more people will take a closer look as well (CRS reports are good reads on the topic) on the matter of “Reorganization Authority,” the first topic below, while realizing that Presidential Reorganization Authority is not the only way of re-arranging government and in the process centralizing power, DE-centralizing the financial trail beyond tracking, and letting the largest currents in the river, and some of the oldest ones (I’m talking about consolidated family wealth held in tax-exempt places…) run the show by default.

“WINDOWFRAME” example which prompted me to write this post:

You may not think, judging by this blog, I watch the current news — but I do, and doing so, I know what I’m saying here is important.  You CANNOT judge a leader by the cause; look at the carrier and the means as well.  Navigating who’s who in any given situation, that is, on-line promotion, website, or named initiative, is an art and a skill.  It’s necessary, and I don’t believe people who just won’t develop it are the best defenders of liberty, justice, rights, or fair play. Start understanding what type of information is being withheld by whom (financial reports on great global causes) and start publicizing the withholding of this information.

Don’t fall into the Democrat/Republican Verbal Ping-Pong Tournaments as the ping-pong balls!  Develop some peripheral (and depth) vision.  There may be other ways, but this is how I’ve been doing it.   Comments fields remain open…. I moved the “Read more of this post” marker further down the page than usual to get to the part containing some annotated images and my statement of purpose for this post.

The tags may be added properly later, but meanwhile, here they are in image format:

(This odd presentation of “tags” for a post substitutes for the real thing, or shorthand for a preview, temporarily)

9/22/2017 update:  Tags have been added, basically the same format, plus a few more. From now on, for tags which represent principles, questions, or exhortations (“Keep Your Eyes on the Assets” etc.) I will start applying quotes (except ones already in place without the quotes) so these will display, ideally, separately from the others.  This isn’t reflected on the above image because the alphabetizing only occurs with a “Save” function; I took the above image as a precaution when there was a glitch in that process.  . . . . Also know that tags are not applied (I do not apply tags) to all posts so the Search function may be best option if all posts on specific topics are wanted.  One reason why — due to a quirk of the blog domain, too many tags makes the blog administrative section, which I use frequently during writing to connect various posts & pages, unwieldy (causes them to display only one or two per page).

If your purpose is to browse the blog in general (although my Sticky Posts do summarize it)  one way to do so is through the table of contents, so far as they go, right sidebar section labeled most recent posts, or on the right sidebar to the blog (scroll down considerably below some “Text” widgets in different background colors), look through those “Vital Links/Chrono-Alpha” menu which has been compiled over several years; I made some recent additions, but typically don’t add to it regularly.  

Overall, there should be something in here for almost anyone, assuming basic GED literacy and some interest in numbers.  Otherwise, I doubt anyone would last long even looking at this blog…..I’m no graphic artist, and have none on payroll (there IS no payroll here….)..


Below this line was written 9/11/2017 or earlier, except for one section on a fund-raiser for New Venture Fund I’d previously studied (Citizen Engagement Laboratory, a 501©4 + its related 501©3 CEL Education Fund) in Northern California).  

Post currently was just under 10,000 words.; with added “CEL” section it is now pushing 12,000 (9/23/2017)


Where this started, this round – I found a third source of CRS reports on the “Reorganization Authority” at EveryCRSReport.com (This one is from 2001, author redacted by practice of those running the website). It’s labeled “Received through CRS Web.”  CRS stands for Congressional Research Service, which is under the Library of Congress.  Link and images will be repeated lower in post also.

While I’m quoting FYI up front several paragraphs (see this background-color) from this 2001 CRS Review on the Reorganization Authority (It’s relevant — I have also two side-bar links on related U.S. history involving this, (Abolishing Representative Government || the Social Scienc-i-fication of America) and referenced the Reorganization Authority several times in 2016 on this blog also), this post less about that content than about the “window-frame” in which (and by whom) it’s presented.

We are missing so much vital information by ignoring follow-up, even basic, “routine” check-it-out searches, on the delivering framework, i.e., the edges of these websites.

Content is one matter.  The conduct of the organizations sponsoring any content is another, and it’s even more important matter when so many are also operating nonprofit and operating in ways designed to affect the direction of both state and federal governments, which is to say, affecting the legislative process and programming.  A closer look beyond their websites at the financials and filings of the sponsoring organizations reveals a lot in a short time about their character, and handling of an important commodity for all of us — money:  Funds.  Numbers. Revenues and Expenses, Assets and Liabilities, and compliance with instructions on an IRS form showing whether it matters to the organizations, or, perhaps not…   

The President’s Reorganization Authority: Review and Analysis  March 8, 2001. [Order Code RL30876]

Summary

Among the initiatives being promoted** with the beginning of the Administration of President George W. Bush

**Writer shows tact (?) in omitting “by whom,” including whether especially by the new President…

is that of renewing the President’s lapsed authority to submit reorganization plans to Congress. The general rationale offered for renewing this authority is that it would provide additional flexibility and discretion to the President in organizing the executive branch to promote “economy and efficiency” as well as his political priorities. The regular legislative route for considering presidential proposals involving organizational changes is deemed by reorganization authority supporters as being unduly slow and cumbersome. Thus, the proposal to permit the President to submit reorganization plans subject to mandatory congressional consideration with “fast track” procedures is viewed by the reorganization proposal’s proponents as a necessary reform for good government. Critics of the reorganization plan authority reject the arguments and assumptions behind  the proposal and defend the efficacy and legitimacy of the regular legislative process for executive reorganization proposals.

This report addresses three specific issues: (1) the historical basis and use of the President’s reorganization authority; (2) the factors contributing to the lapse of the President’s reorganization authority in 1984,[FN1] and (3) thoughts on the future of reorganization in the executive branch.

[FootNote 1] It is worth noting that the Reorganization Act of 1977, as amended, remains “on the books,” but is not presently operative for execution as it expired on December 31, 1984. See Appendix for Reorganization Act Amendments of 1984, 98 Stat. 3192; and Appendix 2 for Executive Reorganization, chapter 9 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code.

AND:

With the 1983 Chadha decision (Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha; 462 U.S. 919) striking down the legislative veto, the utility and desirability of the Reorganization Act, compared to following the regular legislative process, came in to question. Whereas “fast track” options within the larger legislative process retain their appeal under certain circumstances (and reorganization of the executive branch may indeed be one of those circumstances), no President since 1984 has requested the renewal of the reorganization authority.

[I’m posting that quote on 9/11/2017, remembering that this request was made months before the same historic date in 2001].  Paragraph referencing HOOVER, Economy Acts of 1932 and 1933..

…The co-managership concept has been criticized by proponents of the theory of the dominant President that has enjoy ascendency (beginning with the Progressive Movement), throughout most of the last century. While Secretary of Commerce, President Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) had been a proponent of the idea that Congress should delegate to the President authority to propose reorganizations of the executive branch subject to some form of congressional disapproval.3 Near the end of his term, Hoover was successful in persuading Congress, when passing the Economy Acts of 1932 and 1933, to include a provision assigning the President reorganization authority.4 [footnotes omitted from here on, in my quotes]

This short CRS summary is a good read and especially with follow-up on its footnotes will lead, probably for most people except those already IN government or studying it, to a better understanding of the balance of powers (Congress vs. White House) if not in some parts of U.S. history and the various agencies we now seem to take for granted as immutable and apparently believe that if they weren’t seemingly ever-present and effectively running things (including things they have no real jurisdiction over, such as the courts) with the help of the public/private partnership collaborations, “the sky just might fall.”**

Paragraph on President FDR right before WW II:

Although President Franklin Roosevelt had some interest in executive reorganization during the New Deal years, he was more focused toward creating new agencies and programs than in consolidation and retrenchment. The Reorganization Act was rarely used and allowed to lapse in 1935. As America faced heightened international pressures, however, Roosevelt indicated renewed interest in executive reorganization as a tool for increasing presidential authority and for preparing America to meet its wartime responsibilities.8 One product of this changed political climate was passage of the Reorganization Act of 1939.9 This Act provided that for two years the President could submit reorganization plans that would go into effect unless Congress disapproved by a concurrent resolution of disapproval. As far as Congress was concerned, the objective was for the President to use the authority “to reduce expenditures to the fullest extent consistent with the efficient operation of [page break] Government.” President Roosevelt, never persuaded that the principal purpose of reorganizing was saving of money, took the opportunity to successfully propose in Reorganization Plan No. 1 the establishment of an Executive Office of the President.10 During World War II, the President was given authority under Title I of the War Powers Act to make temporary, emergency wartime reorganizations for the duration of the war plus six months.11 (etc.)

(**It feels a little odd saying “the sky might fall” in the recent context of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, where the sky, or at least wind and rain is aggressive and the waters have been rising, power outages, gas shortages, mass-evacuations in Florida, ….but …. I think the comparison with disaster scenario if business as usual (within the federal executive branch of government) were significantly disrupted, reduced, or scaled back.

But this post came from a closer look at who is behind “EveryCRS.com,” that is, the basic windowframe of the on-line service and resource, more than the content.


What’s in the “windowframe” on any website, or uploaded material to a website, typically advertising or publicizing a project, or goods or services?  The intended main message is presented in the main section, but the fine print at the top, or at the bottom, or (with varying degrees, and plenty of exceptions) in part on the “financials” page or any page where such financials are presented. Or, if not presented, that’s part of the “frame” as well.

The purpose of this post isn’t just to expose or explain a single project’s backers, but again for an example of ways to distinguish a project (characterized often by domain name and on website) from the actual backers of the same project.  From here on out on this post, I’m looking at the entities, their tax returns, and their self-declarations of how they’re related to each other.  There are many images and as usual those Form 990 tables.

Because these particular organizations involve some famous family lines, and predictably some “Harvard / Yale/ Georgetown / Columbia” graduates and connections to billion-dollar tax-exempt foundations such as the Nature’s Conservancy // Secretary of the Interior (Clinton Admin). Also involving two young men on one project, one (David Segal) a former Rhode Island House member (Green Party) and I see also a Non-Residential Fellow at Stanford’s Center for the Internet, and the other (David Moon) a current Maryland Democrat. (Self-described Progressive Democrat for MD).

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

September 21, 2017 at 7:57 pm

%d bloggers like this: