text:
4950 S Iddings WESTMILTON OH
This property includes a Store and Lock building with 23 storage units, an environmentally controlled shop and storage facility with 7 storage units and a rental house on 1.712 acres for sale. Zoned: I-1 Light Industrial, this property sits on the northwest corner of SR #571 and South Iddings Road just east of the Stillwater River with access on both SR#571 and South Iddings. The All- Steel store & lock is 3000 Square feet with various sized storage units. The shop and storage building is a brick with wood frame and a metal roof; 1200 square foot with 7 private storage units fully heated and air conditioned. The house is a brick and wood frame with asphalt shingles; is 1733 Square feet with 3 bedrooms and a single bath. Other features include: (2) 200Amp 120 Volts Service. Propane Heat. Well & Septic system. Site is ready for an additional Store & Lock. This Facility is ready to be annexed into West Milton and its zoning makes it flexible to become a strong income producer.
Directions to 4950 S Iddings WESTMILTON OH 45383: From West Milton go East from SR#48 on SR#571 .9 of a mile to So. Iddings Road. Property is on the North West Corner.
More info about this property
Send me information
No spam. Ever.
Bruns Realty Group, LLC
Charles H Elliott
Charles H Elliott
Office: 937-434-1234
Phone: 937-434-1234
Phone: 937-434-1234
The data relating to the real estate for sale on this web site comes in part from the Broker Reciprocity program of the Dayton Area Board of Realtors®. Real estate listings held by brokerage firms other than Comey & Shepherd Realtors are marked with the Broker Reciprocity logo or Broker Reciprocity house icon. The properties displayed may not be all the properties available through Broker Reciprocity.


text: Having a way with something usually connotes having some level of expertise, or skill, and often creative or subtle in nature. More closely, an aptitude. So, "you have a way with words." means simply you speak very well, or you have a way with people means you interact with people well.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
1 The proverbs of Solomon son of David, king of Israel:
2 for gaining wisdom and instruction;
for understanding words of insight;
3 for receiving instruction in prudent behavior,
doing what is right and just and fair;
4 for giving prudence to those who are simple,[a]
knowledge and discretion to the young—
5 let the wise listen and add to their learning,
and let the discerning get guidance—
6 for understanding proverbs and parables,
the sayings and riddles of the wise.[b]
7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge,
but fools[c] despise wisdom and instruction.
8 Listen, my son, to your father's instruction
and do not forsake your mother's teaching.
9 They are a garland to grace your head
and a chain to adorn your neck.
10 My son, if sinful men entice you,
do not give in to them.
11 If they say, "Come along with us;
let's lie in wait for innocent blood,
let's ambush some harmless soul;
12 let's swallow them alive, like the grave,
and whole, like those who go down to the pit;
13 we will get all sorts of valuable things
and fill our houses with plunder;
14 cast lots with us;
we will all share the loot"—
15 my son, do not go along with them,
do not set foot on their paths;
16 for their feet rush into evil,
they are swift to shed blood.
17 How useless to spread a net
where every bird can see it!
18 These men lie in wait for their own blood;
they ambush only themselves!
19 Such are the paths of all who go after ill-gotten gain;
it takes away the life of those who get it.
20 Out in the open wisdom calls aloud,
she raises her voice in the public square;
21 on top of the wall[d] she cries out,
at the city gate she makes her speech:
22 "How long will you who are simple love your simple ways?
How long will mockers delight in mockery
and fools hate knowledge?
23 Repent at my rebuke!
Then I will pour out my thoughts to you,
I will make known to you my teachings.
24 But since you refuse to listen when I call
and no one pays attention when I stretch out my hand,
25 since you disregard all my advice
and do not accept my rebuke,
26 I in turn will laugh when disaster strikes you;
I will mock when calamity overtakes you—
27 when calamity overtakes you like a storm,
when disaster sweeps over you like a whirlwind,
when distress and trouble overwhelm you.
28 "Then they will call to me but I will not answer;
they will look for me but will not find me,
29 since they hated knowledge
and did not choose to fear the Lord.
30 Since they would not accept my advice
and spurned my rebuke,
31 they will eat the fruit of their ways
and be filled with the fruit of their schemes.
32 For the waywardness of the simple will kill them,
and the complacency of fools will destroy them;
33 but whoever listens to me will live in safety
and be at ease, without fear of harm."
2 My son, if you accept my words
and store up my commands within you,
2 turning your ear to wisdom
and applying your heart to understanding—
3 indeed, if you call out for insight
and cry aloud for understanding,
4 and if you look for it as for silver
and search for it as for hidden treasure,
5 then you will understand the fear of the Lord
and find the knowledge of God.
6 For the Lord gives wisdom;
from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.
7 He holds success in store for the upright,
he is a shield to those whose walk is blameless,
8 for he guards the course of the just
and protects the way of his faithful ones.
9 Then you will understand what is right and just
and fair—every good path.
10 For wisdom will enter your heart,
and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul.
11 Discretion will protect you,
and understanding will guard you.
12 Wisdom will save you from the ways of wicked men,
from men whose words are perverse,
13 who have left the straight paths
to walk in dark ways,
14 who delight in doing wrong
and rejoice in the perverseness of evil,
15 whose paths are crooked
and who are devious in their ways.
16 Wisdom will save you also from the adulterous woman,
from the wayward woman with her seductive words,
17 who has left the partner of her youth
and ignored the covenant she made before God.[e]
18 Surely her house leads down to death
and her paths to the spirits of the dead.
19 None who go to her return
or attain the paths of life.
20 Thus you will walk in the ways of the good
and keep to the paths of the righteous.
21 For the upright will live in the land,
and the blameless will remain in it;
22 but the wicked will be cut off from the land,
and the unfaithful will be torn from it.
16 Now about the collection for the Lord's people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. 2 On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. 3 Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem. 4 If it seems advisable for me to go also, they will accompany me.
5 After I go through Macedonia, I will come to you—for I will be going through Macedonia. 6 Perhaps I will stay with you for a while, or even spend the winter, so that you can help me on my journey, wherever I go. 7 For I do not want to see you now and make only a passing visit; I hope to spend some time with you, if the Lord permits. 8 But I will stay on at Ephesus until Pentecost, 9 because a great door for effective work has opened to me, and there are many who oppose me.
10 When Timothy comes, see to it that he has nothing to fear while he is with you, for he is carrying on the work of the Lord, just as I am. 11 No one, then, should treat him with contempt. Send him on his way in peace so that he may return to me. I am expecting him along with the brothers.
12 Now about our brother Apollos: I strongly urged him to go to you with the brothers. He was quite unwilling to go now, but he will go when he has the opportunity.
13 Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be courageous; be strong. 14 Do everything in love.
15 You know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the Lord's people. I urge you, brothers and sisters, 16 to submit to such people and to everyone who joins in the work and labors at it. 17 I was glad when Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus arrived, because they have supplied what was lacking from you. 18 For they refreshed my spirit and yours also. Such men deserve recognition.
19 The churches in the province of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Priscilla[a] greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house. 20 All the brothers and sisters here send you greetings. Greet one another with a holy kiss.
21 I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand.
22 If anyone does not love the Lord, let that person be cursed! Come, Lord[b]!
23 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you.
24 My love to all of you in Christ Jesus. Amen.[c]
Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.


text:
Two Massacres With Haunting Similarities
The Newtown tragedy is remarkably reminiscent of the one Dunblane, Scotland, endured in 1996. A look at how that massacre affected the public-policy debate in the U.K., and whether that reaction holds any clues to how an American response might unfold now. Photo: AFP.
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.
... the ... all soon ... she gained sixteen years on ... that school's ... one in Connecticut wanted some blame Scotland may have some some eyes but also the reaction is likely to be different ... Jerry Sithe of The will Street own joins us now from Washington DC to discuss this ad Jerry Wright poem as always aam to tell us about some blame and the similarities ... well nineteen ninety six on the similarities star with the fact that you had in both cases in elementary school where ... a man ... mentally troubled man in each case walks in and dun blame summit walked into several handguns ... down five in situ roles in the ... imagination began shooting sixteen of those kids died ... out one teacher several that teaches wounded ... I in in Newtown Connecticut obviously somebody walked in found all Sustiva Leon's two six seven euros in this case ... opened fire twenty died ... and six and also as ... administrators and teachers ... so the the the ... shop was similar both countries you had ... the same scenes of Paris rushing to the school trip to go what happened to their children ... a nation that when it's a sort of shock and disbelief ... two days later the national leader the Prime Minister of ... of the nineteen into the case and ... in in this case prison I stayed shows up to try to help ... heal some of the ones in ... so that I think the events themselves are eerily similar in their specifics ... not that deep down some but that the reaction in both in Britain on two gun control was what some Americans might say is extreme one remind us what happened ... what what what happened in the in the case of the UK was that that the ... tragedy of Dublin started a movement of the kind of addictive as predicted this at the time of the tragedy ... I wish petition drives up the candle believe there are two large petition drives one run ... by the Daily Mail newspaper and other organized by families and friends ... of the victims ... of all of those two drives produced a million petition signatures asking for more controls ... on handguns and specifically condemns in the case of UK because those are the weapons used it on a plane ... there was that produce was a movement that began first with the conservative government ... and then picked up later by the success succeeding Labor Party government ... and within a year and a half that of the Roman Britain had passed very though whites of a wide ranging gun control legislation of essentially outlawed handguns in United Kingdom ... that is probably something that won't happen in the US to think the gun culture here in the second amendment here ... are are are quite different forces ... but it tells you that you can predict ... at the outset exactly how of far and wide reaching these of Ripoll facts might be and and and I guess that's part of one of your column Jerry is it that we weave when not in their will to predict with these now they see how this plays out right ... no I think that's exactly right and I think it's a mistake to try to predict at this hour because ... a lot of people as said that two things I think are possible but by no means certain that are contradictory some people say what surely now that obese gun control legislation ... that's been said in the past after tragedies like this and nothing actually happens ... other people have said essentially well in the past for these things happen ... the memory stays fairly quickly people talk about doing something nothing ever happens support for gun control actually goes up and that's true in past circumstances I don't think it's safe to predict at this point ... whether either of those predictions is correct ... Visa said McCollam is I think one of a more sensible that I ideas that emerge in the last couple days ... came from Joe Lieberman the retiring Senator from Connecticut Avici the side of this ... tragedy ... we said let's have a National Commission on gun violence that of a national inquiry ... and figure out what it is we wanted to ... and not the memory say but also to have a ... broad based conversation not just putting a gun control legislation ... by the violence in entertainment in the entertainment culture and how we handle no health problems in this country in cases like this so ... that if that happens we're in for a longer but serves last up its national conversation ... and I know and hopefully a bit a bit deeper than just just sound bites that so ... that sounds interesting thank you ... thank you Brian much Jerry Sithe or supplies any on the


text:
This was mostly a good year for local business.
Housing construction, always a bellwether of the economy, is on an extended rebound. Sales and building permits are up significantly over the last two years.
Worcester's downtown showed some signs of life, with the opening of CitySquare and its two major tenants, Unum and St. Vincent Hospital. Talk of a hotel filling one of the other empty swaths of land left behind by the bulldozing of the vacant mall remained only talk. And left unnoticed were the properties that Unum and St. Vincent left behind to fill these shiny new spaces � more vacant office and medical space in the city � on Chestnut Street and on Vernon Hill.
JetBlue came to Worcester, which was huge news for an airport that had been dormant since commercial air traffic ceased in February 2012 with the bankruptcy of Direct Air. JetBlue's flights to Orlando and Fort Lauderdale have been lauded by those who use them, although ticket prices seem to be higher than similar flights from Providence's T.F. Green Airport and Boston's Logan Airport.
Devens, the former military base that has land in four towns, made news when it filled the huge manufacturing plant vacated by Evergreen Solar with Saint-Gobain on one side and Bristol-Myers Squib on the other, plus added new housing and a film studio. We sure love Saint-Gobain in Worcester, a reminder that manufacturing is far from dead.
There were some significant comings and goings in the business world.
Tim Murray resigned as the state's lieutenant governor � in part because of the criticism that his association with disgraced former Chelsea Housing Authority Director Michael E. McLaughlin had crippled him politically � and landed a cushy $200,000-plus per year job with the Worcester Regional Chamber of Commerce. He imbued some life into the moribund chamber, I'll give him that.
Dr. Eric W. Dickson took over as head of the city's largest employer, UMass Memorial Health Care, while Patrick Muldoon took the helm at its city hospital group, UMass Memorial Medical Center.
UMHC also made news for its $58 million operating shortfall in fiscal year 2013, the first such shortfall in eight years. The shortfall was more than made up with the proceeds from the sale of its clinical laboratory and home healthcare units. UMHC announced that it will cut jobs and programs next year in order to bring its operating budget back to even.
At Reliant Medical Group, Dr. Armin Ernst took over as president and CEO.
Although they are not business jobs, per se, there were some comings and goings at City Hall that reverberated through the business community. Michael V. O'Brien announced he will leave the city manager job he held since 2004 to become a vice president at WinnDevelopment. Tim McGourthy, head of the city's economic development office since 2006, announced he will take over at the Worcester Regional Research Bureau next year. Roberta Schaefer, who led the research bureau since its inception 30 years ago, retired.
IPG Photonics in Oxford, a publicly traded company, had a great year. Through the third quarter, the company reported 10 percent revenue growth, a company record $172 million in revenue. CEO Valentin Gapontsev wrote in a September press release that the demand for the company's high-powered lasers was high in China and Turkey, lower in Europe and North America.
A private company that did noticeably well was eClinicalWorks of Westboro, which builds and manages electronic medical record systems. The company has posted $200 million in sales, and projects to earn $100 million in revenue by 2015. With federal mandates looming that will force every medical institution and doctor's office in the land to convert to electronic records by 2015, it's well-positioned in a growth industry.
There were some negative developments this year as well.
Intel, the West Coast-based computer chip maker, announced that it will close its Hudson manufacturing plant in 2014 and lay off about 700 workers. The plant had been manufacturing obsolete computer chips for outdated electronic equipment, and would have had to build a new plant to stay current. Instead, it will build a $5 billion factory in Chandler, Ariz., and a $3 billion expansion of its facility in Hillsboro, Ore.
There were some other significant developments in 2013, from the sale of the Telegram & Gazette (and some other publications) to billionaire and Boston Red Sox owner John Henry; the shuttering of 1-800-East-West Mortgage by Commerce Bank & Trust; and the sale of Clinton-based Nypro to Jabil Circuit Inc. of St. Petersburg, Fla.
Plenty of other business news made headlines in 2013 � tell me what I missed.


text:
Oscar-winning British actress/screenwriter Emma Thompson will receive the Modern Master Award at the 29th Santa Barbara International Film Festival.
Thompson, who won the best actress Oscar for 1992's "Howard's End" and the adapted screenplay Academy Award for 1995's "Sense and Sensibility," will receive her honor at a tribute Feb. 8 at the Arlington Theatre.
The Modern Master Award is the highest honor presented by the film festival and pays tribute to an individual who "has enriched our culture through his/her multi-facted accomplishments in the motion picture industry."
"With the distinction of being the only artist to win an Oscar for both best actress and best screenplay, Ms. Thompson exemplifies the spirit of the Modern Master," said festival director Roger Durling in a statement.
Previous recipients include Ben Affleck, Christopher Nolan, Michael Douglas, Jodie Foster and George Clooney.
Thompson, 54, has been receiving awards buzz for her performance as "Mary Poppins" author P.L. Travers, opposite Tom Hanks, in the film "Saving Mr. Banks," which opens Dec. 13.


text:
|Morticia Addams (Carolyn Jones): The Addams Family.
|Yvonne De Carlo as Lily Munster: The Munsters.
|June Lockhart as Maureen Robinson: Lost in Space.
|Jane Wyatt as Amanda Grayson in Star Trek: "Journey to Babel"
|Suzanne Neve as Mrs. Straker, UFO: "A Question of Priorities"
|Erica Hagen as Mrs. Marshall, Land of the Lost: "Album"
|Cyd Hayman as Sue Crawford on Space:1999: "Alpha Child"
|Jane Seymour as Serina in Battlestar Galactica (original series)
|Blair Tefkin as Robin in V: The Series ("Breakout")
|Gretchen Corbett as June Sterling in Otherworld.
|Grace Zabriskie as Mrs. Palmer on Twin Peaks (pilot episode).
|Dr. Jill Brock (Kathy Baker) in Picket Fences.
|Nancy Paul as Sally Brogan on Space Precinct
|: Debrah Farentino as Devon Adair in Earth 2.
|Catherine Black (Meghan Gallagher) in Millennium.
|Mary Jo Pehl as Pearl Forrester in Mystery Science Theater 3000.
|Kristine Sutherland as Joyce Sommers in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
|Gillian Anderson as Dr. Dana Scully in The X-Files.
|Lena Olin as Irina Derevko in Alias.
|Annette O'Toole as Martha Kent, in Smallville.
|Lena Headey as Sarah Connor in The Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles
|Lena Headey as Cersei in Game of Thrones


text:
Classic Flat, 4mm, Rose Gold (Standard)
Classic Flat, 4mm, Rose Gold (Standard)
Classic Flat 4mm wedding band in Rose Gold. Choose from 14k gold or 18k gold.
We offer two polishes: shiny and sandblasted matte. You will be able to choose your preferred polish at checkout. More info on these options are below in the FAQ.
We offer custom ring sizing: You will be able to choose your exact size at checkout. Don't know your size? Request a free ring sizer here.
Our rings are handmade in NYC of sustainable, recycled solid gold. Each piece is made to order, please allow up to 3 weeks for delivery.
How do I pick the birthstone on the inside?
If you would like your partner's birthstone to be set on the inside of your wedding band, we offer a selection of ethically-mined 1.5mm birthstones. You can choose your birthstone after you add to cart.
See our birthstone chart below:
January - Garnet
February - Amethyst
March - Aquamarine
April - Grey Diamond
May - Emerald
June - Moonstone
July - Ruby
August - Peridot
September - Sapphire
October - Opal
November - Citrine
December - Turquoise
What's the difference between 14 karat gold and 18 karat gold?
The kind of gold you purchase depends on your needs. Pure gold is 24 karat—it is extremely soft, and more susceptible to scratching and bending, therefore not ideal for jewelry. The karat number goes down as the pure gold content of the item goes down. For example, 18k gold contains 75 percent gold and 25 percent gold alloy; it is therefore harder than 24k gold but softer than 14k gold, which contains 58.3 percent gold and 41.7 percent gold alloy. All gold rings are susceptible to scratching, but because of its higher gold purity, 18k gold wedding bands will show wear marks sooner than 14k gold bands. For active men who often use their hands, 14k gold is considered ideal for rings. For men who value a higher purity of gold, 18k is best. Regardless, if your ring starts to look worn, you can easily have it re-polished to look brand new again.
What are the different polishes you offer?
We offer two polishes: shiny and sandblasted matte. The shiny polish is the most known and classic polish, leaving the ring with a sleek, glossy finish. The sandblasted matte is ideal for those who prefer their ring to have less shine, leaving a smooth, duller surface.
Is one polish more scratch-resistant than another?
All gold rings and their polishes are susceptible to scratching. Some people believe a brushed matte finish will be more effective at hiding scratches from wear, however, this is not the case. Because most scratches come from something metal (like a doorknob or a handlebar), they will leave a shiny spot on the brushed matte finish of the ring. New scratches will be more apparent until the wear begins to even out. Similarly, the sandblasted matte finish will eventually polish naturally with wear. In the opposite way, the shiny polish will gradually wear to a less shiny finish. If your ring starts to look worn, you can easily have it re-polished to look brand new again.
If you have any more questions, please visit our full FAQ here.


text:
College football is all about tradition. The tradition of the NCAA Football 12 development team is the godawful annoying "Alpha song," played every night while the game is in its alpha build. This year's song was Wham!'s "Careless Whisper," the signature tune of the Sexy Sax Man.
You may have heard of him. (This video, uploaded in March, has more than six million views.) Sexy Sax Man is quite the guerrilla artist, barging in bare-chested on food courts, laundromats, Walmarts and college classrooms to belt out "Careless Whisper", the oversaxed 1984 hit by Andrew Ridgeley and that other guy.
According to Alex Howell, NCAA's Road to Glory designer, Roy Harvey (the game's executive producer) paid his own money to get Sexy Sax Man to Maitland, Florida, to sax-bomb the team's final meeting, seen here. That's Howell, posing for the picture at the stage. You can make out NCAA's Ben Haumiller (red shirt, right of the aisle) as well as E.J. Samuel, Eric Sherwood, Bradley Schmidt and Tom Kenney.
NCAA Football 12 features enhanced game day presentation; it is unconfirmed whether Sexy Sax Man performs at halftime.


text:
Lake Worth Marble Restoration and Cleaning Experts
WPB Inc. – Committed to Deliver Excellent Results For Your Total Satisfaction
Marble is a one of the most beautiful stone that exudes warmth and elegance anyone can have in their home or business establishments, as well as increases your beautiful home's and business value. However, marble is relatively a soft stone, like any valuable investment, marble needs to be cared for properly. Marble can become dull and damaged through daily wear and tear, improper maintenance, scratches, staining, or the use of harmful chemicals. Every marble needs some type of care and maintenance. Marble will scratch, etch and lose its shine and luster if not maintained properly. A regular maintenance and restoration program is vital if the marble floor is a high traffic foot area.
One of the first thing people will observe when entering your home or business premises is the floor, if your marble flooring is fading from dirt and stains, scratches, harmful chemicals and exposure to the elements, it is the time to restore, clean, repair and care it back to its natural beauty.
Improve Your Home With WPB Inc. , Best and Affordable Lake Worth Marble Restoration Expert, Marble Cleaners, Marble Refinishing, Marble Repair and Marble Care
If you live in Lake Worth and are looking for marble expert to do marble restoration, marble cleaning, marble refinishing, marble repair and marble care, choose a company that is committed to deliver excellent results for your total satisfaction.
Dealing with different companies in Lake Worth for your marble restoration, marble cleaning, marble refinishing, marble repair and care needs can be a headache. You never know who to call and who to trust.
Choose WPB, your solution to provide quality and affordable services to do marble restoration, marble refinishing, marble cleaning, marble repair and marble care needs.
When you open the doors to WPB all of your marble services needs, marble restoration, marble cleaning, marble refinishing, marble repair and care are fully covered while delivering excellent results.
We go above and beyond. We have no competition in Lake Worth because we specialize in your total satisfaction!
WPB Service takes pride in being a reliable, experienced and dependable marble experts. Our reputation is built on a proven track record of timely performance, quality cleaning and workmanship, and competitive pricing. Our team of marble experts in Lake Worth will provide a thorough top-quality service every time using state-of-the-art. Our client's satisfaction in Lake Worth is our mission with every job.
WPB is family owned and operated and has been providing quality marble restoration, marble cleaning, marble refinishing, marble repair, marble maintenance and marble care service in Lake Worth since 1999. We are licensed and insured.
As marble experts in Lake Worth we understand and appreciate its characteristics. Our passion for what we do and a strong commitment to educate our customers on proper care and maintenance is evident in every single job we do.
WPB proudly serves Lake Worth and can repair, refinish, protect and restore your marble back to its original condition.
At WPB we not only care for your marble, we can instruct you on the proper care you should use in cleaning your marble We offer our full line of Special Care Products to help you assure that you are using the proper products that clean and that will give your marble the beauty you are looking for.
Our team uses the most modern equipment that can restore years of wear and tears, and is able to bring back to life even the most tired and damage marble surfaces. Most scratches and stains can be completely removed.
With our expertise in marble restoration, cleaning and repair and modern equipment, having your marble floors restored today is more affordable than ever. Let our experts fix the damage.
For all Lake Worth home and business owners that have a marble floor, wall, counter top, vanity or shower that has become etched, has lost its shine and beauty or is in need of repair, then it is probably time to call WPB If every day wear and tear has removed the luster from your marble floors, wall, countertops, vanity or shower then call us now for our special marble restoration, marble cleaning, marble repair, marble maintenance and care system in Lake Worth.
"Call Us Today For a FREE No Obligation Quotation for your Marble Restoration, Marble Cleaning, Marble Refinishing, Marble Repairs and Mable Maintenance and Care. We do serve residential homes and business establishments every day in Lake Worth."
Call Now on 0561-880-0048/561-596-6364 or Email Us at email@example.com


text:
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Is J.P. about to lose his paisan?
The news from Bobby McLeod says that LaCava is being interviewed for the Seattle Mariners GM job, along with four other candidates. This is the second time in as many years that LaCava gets an interview, after being considered for the helm of his hometown Pittsburgh Pirates last year.
We've made barely veiled comments in these parts that the Jays might have a ready-made replacement for J.P. if the organization decides to tie the can to him. Not that we want to begrudge Tony any success, but we'd feel better if he were around to pick up the pieces and maintain some continuity should the Rogers brass decide to sacrifice Ricciardi as an appeasement to the unwashed stupid masses.
7 comments:
- The Ack said...
If Lacava gets the gig, does this make that Antholopolopothouloupolulis cat the "next in line" internal candidate?
I have a hard time spelling his name because, obviously, I'm overtly racist towards Greeks.
- October 9, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Ack, I'm half Greek but you are all homo, so fuck off! Ack what is that some cute Yiddish name masquerading as a WASP name? Probably, so have an unhappy New Year!
La Cava or the golden Greek should not be GM. Those are Wilner's fucking picks, the same dickweed who can't believe that Tampa came in first and doesn't think they can get anywhere in the playoffs. Wilner will be gagging when the Rays win it all! They need to get some smart Jewish guy like Friedman or Theo. Not ack though, he is a dumb Jew. They have to go outside of the organization because they are not winners they are losers so far. When a team just finished in 4th place, no one interally should be a solution.
- October 9, 2008 at 10:49 AM
- The Ack said...
that's me, 100% Jewish homo! Just need to convince my wife and Catholic parents of that fact, and we're all set.
ummm, yeah. I really can't tell if you're being serious or tongue in cheek there, anon, but that was pretty fucking wacked.
anyway, point at hand - both Friedman and Theo were internal hires, so I don't see how that works for your argument.
- October 9, 2008 at 11:04 AM
- Tao of Stieb said...
"Fourth place".
Oh, how we're growing to hate those words.
- October 9, 2008 at 11:21 AM
- Darren Priest said...
Actually, Lloyd probably nailed it.
- October 9, 2008 at 6:16 PM
4th PLACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
suck it bitch
- October 9, 2008 at 11:57 PM
Ack, Friedman came from Wall Street and Theo actually worked for the Padres before he came to Boston, so there were not internal so to speak like Brian Cashman was. You essentially need a different set of eyes to see how this organization can be bettered, because there is something wrong with this team in terms of injuries to pitching, lack of offense and lack of accountability. There needs to be a different philosophy with the Jays and the Golden Greek and LaCava all came under JP's aegis.
BTW, Jews and Catholics share that guilt thing and there are a lot of Jews that converted to Catholicism to hide their Yiddishness!
- October 10, 2008 at 4:57 PM


text:
The Murphy Chamber of Commerce is located at 206 N Murphy Road, Murphy, TX 75094. We offer a weekly business card exchange networking coffee, monthly luncheons, ribbon cuttings, additional chamber and tri-chamber (Murphy-Sachse-Wylie) networking mixers, education seminars, an extensive Chamber Directory, advertising discounts with the Murphy Messenger and Murphy Monitor, and business referrals. There are many opportunities to serve on committees and volunteer in our community. Only through your participation can the Chamber grow and make an impact on the community, its people, and its businesses.
Child Care
Content goes here!
The mission of the Murphy Chamber of Commerce is to promote and strengthen business relationships through membership, offer solutions for their needs and create the best community in which to work and grow a business.
Office: Inside City Hall, First Floor, 206 N Murphy Road, Murphy
Mailing Address: 120 E FM 544, Suite 72, PMB 157, Murphy, TX 75094
Chamber Executive Director: Juli Richards
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Telephone: 972-805-3749
Website: www.murphychamber.org


text:
- Font:
- +
- -
MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: North Korea says it has tested a nuclear device. Three years ago the president made this firm pledge:
(Videotape, May 23, 2003):
PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: We will not tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: What now? With us: the administration's point man on negotiating an international response, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton.
Then, only 23 days until the midterm elections. The Democrats must gain six seats to take control of the U.S. Senate. This morning, our Senate Debate series continues with another one of the most closely watched races of the year: Minnesota, where Republican Representative Mark Kennedy faces off against Democratic Hennepin County attorney Amy Klobuchar for this open seat. A new poll out this morning shows Klobuchar with a significant lead.
[bar graph shown]
55% 34%
MR. RUSSERT: Republican Mark Kennedy vs. Democrat Amy Klobuchar.
But first, North Korea. The United Nations Security Council voted 15-to-nothing to impose sanctions on North Korea for developing a nuclear weapons program. With us now to talk about that, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton.
Mr. Ambassador, good morning.
MR. JOHN BOLTON: Good morning.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you a press report describing what happened yesterday afternoon, and give you a chance to respond. "The United States was compelled to water down key measures designed to ensure that the sanctions could be enforced. And China - which shares an 880-mile border with North Korea - said after the vote that it would ignore a critical provision, which calls on governments to inspect goods entering or leaving North Korea...
"The resolution stops far short of imposing the kind of sweeping trade embargo initially proposed by Japan. It no longer contains a U.S.-proposed provision to give North Korea 30 days to suspend its nuclear program or face 'further action.'
"The text also provides no additional authority to allow inspections of North Korean vessels suspected of transporting illicit weapons. The United States claims that it already possesses that power, but China maintains that such actions violate international law."
If the Chinese are unwilling to protect the 880-mile border, or to board North Korean vessels for inspections, what good are these sanctions?
MR. BOLTON: I think, first off, you have to remember that China voted in favor of this resolution, which is under Chapter 7 of the U.N. charter, and therefore binding on them. So I don't think there's any reason to believe that they're not going to abide by the terms of the resolution. And the, the guts of the resolution are sweeping sanctions against North Korea's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and their ballistic missile program. The council was unanimous in saying that North Korea has to completely, verifiably and irreversibly abandon all of those programs. This in response to the nuclear tests and, frankly, in response to the missile test earlier this summer.
We think that the inspection provision that the resolution contains is essentially identical to the inspection provision that we proposed on Monday, so we're quite satisfied with this outcome.
MR. RUSSERT: Will the U.S. board North Korean vessels, if necessary, to inspect them?
MR. BOLTON: The intention that we have and that many other governments have, particularly those that are part of President Bush's proliferation security initiative, will be to continue to carry out the inspections that we deem necessary in, in aid of this resolution. And, again, the inspection provision is quite broad. It talks about compliance with all of the provisions of the sanctions paragraph of the resolution.
MR. RUSSERT: After the vote was taken, the North Korean ambassador to the U.N. addressed the assembly. Let's watch.
(Videotape, Yesterday):
MR. PAK GIL YON: The Democrat People's Republic of Korea is ready for both dialogue and confrontation. If the United States increase pressure upon the Democrat People's Republic of Korea persistently, the DPRK will continue to take physical countermeasures, considering it as a declaration of war.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: In effect, considering the sanctions as a declaration of war. After the ambassador spoke, he left the assembly, and—prompting you to say this. Let's watch.
(Videotape, Yesterday):
MR. BOLTON: I'm not going to waste any of our time responding to what the representative of the DPRK has said, but I want to call your attention to that empty chair. It is the contemporary equivalent of Nikita Khrushchev pounding his shoe on the desk of the General Assembly.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: That's back in 1960, and here's Nikita Khrushchev pounding his fist on the desk in a very similar time period. Is it helpful to compare the North Koreans to Mr. Khrushchev?
MR. BOLTON: I think the North Koreans twice now in the space of three months rejecting unanimous Security Council resolutions and walking out on the meeting of the council while it's still in session, a meeting they requested to participate in, I think shows a very unfortunate pattern of behavior on their part. Now, hopefully there's somebody in Pyongyang who's going to appreciate somewhat better the force of a unanimous Security Council resolution under Chapter 7. North Korea has the opportunity here to change course; the ball's really in their court at this point.
MR. RUSSERT: Three and a half years ago, President Bush made this firm commitment to the people of the United States and the world. Let's watch.
(Videotape, May 23, 2003):
PRES. BUSH: We will not tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Will the president hold to that pledge?
MR. BOLTON: I think President Bush has made it very clear that he wants to have a peaceful and diplomatic solution to the problem posed by North Korea's continuing pursuit of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. That's part of the reason why we've pushed for these very strong sanctions in the Security Council, to deprive North Korea of the ability to continue its nuclear weapons and other programs of weapons of mass destruction. At this point, the choice is really in North Korea's hands; if they would come back to the six-party talks, if they'd comply with the declaration that they themselves joined in in September of 2005 to eliminate their nuclear weapons programs, they could have a much brighter future for the, for the impoverished people of North Korea. The choice is theirs at this point.
MR. RUSSERT: Then let's discuss nuclear accountability. Will this administration say to the North Koreans, "If we find that you are the originators of any nuclear materials that hit the U.S. or our allies, there will be full retaliation against North Korea"?
MR. BOLTON: Well, I think it's very clear to the North Koreans that, as the president said a couple of times in the past few days, we're going to meet all of our defense commitments to our allies—South Korea and Japan—in the region, we'll increase defense cooperation with them, and we will undoubtedly defend ourselves if we need to. But the point here is that by working multilaterally through the Security Council, twice now in three months, we've made it clear that we're trying to get North Korea to see reason and abandon these programs. Libya was also pursuing nuclear weapons until it came to the conclusion it was safer giving up nuclear weapons than continuing to pursue them. That's North Korea's choice to make now.
MR. RUSSERT: How concerned are you that North Korea would decide to flood South Korea or China with millions of refugees?
MR. BOLTON: Well, I think the, the possibility of refugee flows is very much on everyone's mind. And what we would like to see is the possibility of what our policy has been since 1945 when the peninsula was supposedly temporarily partitioned after World War II, and that's peaceful reunification under a democratic government. But the immediate concern is that North Korea not use the threat of refugee flows to intimidate its neighbors. That's their typical bargaining style, and it's a style we have to resist.
MR. RUSSERT: Has North Korea's nuclear capability increased during the Bush presidency?
MR. BOLTON: I, I think we have no way of being certain of that one way or the other, but that's why here, confronted with this attempted nuclear test by the North Koreans, we've sought and obtained these very sweeping sanctions. This is an example of multilateral diplomacy, it was a unanimous vote by the Security Council, and I think it's going to put enormous pressure on the North Korean regime.
MR. RUSSERT: Former Secretary of State Jim Baker said, "I believe in talking to your enemies. ... It's not appeasement to talk to your enemies." Why not sit down one-on-one with the North Koreans, look them in the eye and draw the line?
MR. BOLTON: Well, we have sat down one-on-one with the North Koreans in this administration on multiple occasions. The first was when we confronted them with their evidence—the evidence we had of their violation of the agreed framework. We've had discussions with them one-on-one in the context of the six-party talks. We could have more discussions with them one-on-one if the North Koreans would come back to the six-party talks. They were offered as recently as a couple of months ago in Kuala Lumpur the possibility of a foreign minister-level meeting with Secretary Rice in a six-party environment, they rejected that. The difficulty here of conversations between North Korea and the United States doesn't lie with the United States, it lies with North Korea.
MR. RUSSERT: The North Koreans have said, and the Iranians have said, that "The lesson of Iraq is that the U.S. will invade you if you don't have nuclear weapons. And therefore, we're going to have a nuclear capability to help prevent a pre-emptive attack." What's your response?
MR. BOLTON: I think that both the North Koreans and the Iranians have been pursuing nuclear weapons for decades—the Iranians for close to 20 years, the North Koreans for at least 15 years and maybe more. This was a course of action that they had decided upon and were implementing long before the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. And again, you know, the president has said on any number of occasions, both with respect to Iran and with respect to North Korea, that he wants a peaceful and diplomatic solution.
MR. RUSSERT: Bottom line, will North Korea have a nuclear bomb when George Bush leaves office?
MR. BOLTON: I think the president's spending every effort he can make. He personally has engaged in extensive diplomacy this week. Secretary Rice will be going to the region. We're working with our friends and allies, we're working in the Security Council, we're working in the International Atomic Energy Agency. There's not much more multilateral or bilateral diplomacy we can imagine here. And we're putting pressure on North Korea. The real question now is what Pyongyang is going to do.
MR. RUSSERT: And if they do nothing, but continue to develop their program, what do we do?
MR. BOLTON: We're going to continue to ratchet up the pressure, make it clear that their international isolation is only going to increase, and we're going to make it, to the extent we can, impossible for them to continue the program through making sure they don't get the materials and technology and equipment they need to continue these programs.
MR. RUSSERT: May we have to use a military option eventually?
MR. BOLTON: The president never takes the military option off the table, but he has said more times than we can count, he wants a peaceful and diplomatic solution.
MR. RUSSERT: Ambassador John Bolton, we thank you very much for your views.
MR. BOLTON: Thank you.
MR. RUSSERT: Coming next, our Senate Debate series continues. This morning, all eyes on Minnesota where Republican Mark Kennedy faces off against Democrat Amy Klobuchar. They debate right here on MEET THE PRESS. Twenty-three days to go until the midterm elections.
MR. RUSSERT: Our MEET THE PRESS Senate Debate series: Minnesota. The candidates square off after this station break.
MR. RUSSERT: And we welcome Democrat Amy Klobuchar, Republican Mark Kennedy.
Welcome, both.
REP. MARK KENNEDY (R-MN): Good to be here, Tim.
MS. AMY KLOBUCHAR: Good to be here.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me pick up on North Korea, Mr. Kennedy. If the North Koreans simply ignore these sanctions, or the Chinese don't enforce the sanctions, what do we do? Do we use military action to stop their nuclear program?
REP. KENNEDY: I think we need to continue to ratchet up the diplomatic efforts. You know, we've had two U.N. resolutions unanimous. And we also need to continue to push China. China has the novel—nozzles that they can push on food, on energy. They have far more influence over North Korea. If they're going to be a world power, they have to act like a world power.
MR. RUSSERT: But President Bush said, "We will not tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea." Do we hold him to his commitment?
REP. KENNEDY: Yes, but he also said that we want to have a peaceful and diplomatic solution. So we have to push every channel we can to achieve it in a peaceful and diplomatic way, not taking anything off the table. And we've seen a step towards that just yesterday. We need to continue, and we need to continue to push China.
MR. RUSSERT: But if George Bush leaves office with nuclear devices in North Korea, will it have been a failed policy?
REP. KENNEDY: We need to take every step we can to prevent that from happening.
MR. RUSSERT: Ms. Klobuchar?
MS. KLOBUCHAR: You know, as a prosecutor, I know that when people cross a line, Tim, there's got to be consequences. And in foreign affairs, it's the same thing. I believe these sanctions are incredibly important; we can't have North Korea begin to be some kind of weapons factory, and they can't be selling and bartering nuclear materials. And the rest of the world is watching. We don't want to create an arms race here. And especially Iran is watching, and that's why I think these sanctions are incredibly important.
MR. RUSSERT: But if the North Koreans ignore them, what do we do?
MS. KLOBUCHAR: Again, we have to keep ratcheting things up. We have to keep working with our partners.
But one of the things that went wrong here is that these multilateral discussions broke down, North Korea walked away from the table, and I believe we have to keep talking. We have to—it's good that China's part of this, but if it's moving in the right direction and if we believe it's in our national security interests, we should be talking to them directly. I mean, even during the Cold War we kept talking to Russia. And so the discussions are important, and we need to keep the diplomatic pressure on.
MR. RUSSERT: Should President Bush sit down one-on-one with Kim Jong Il?
MS. KLOBUCHAR: Again, it's too early to say that, but I believe that we need to keep those discussions going, as well as keeping the sanctions ratcheting up, if necessary, and keeping the military option on the table.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you what Bill Clinton, when he was president 13 years ago, said about North Korea right here on "Meet the Press."
(Videotape, November 7, 1998):
PRES. BILL CLINTON: North Korea cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear bomb.
We have to be very firm about it.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: So we've had two presidents, one Democrat, one Republican. When President Clinton said that, the North Koreans probably had the potential to build two nuclear devices. It's now up to 13. And if nothing is done when George Bush leaves office, it could reach 17. It seems as though the United States talks tough with North Korea, but allows the program to go forward.
MS. KLOBUCHAR: Again, keeping the military option on the table is key, but these sanctions are the first step, and unlike how we handled Iraq or where it was "Go it alone," I believe we have to work with our allies in the area. That's starting to happen more, but we have to keep that up.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iraq, because it's an issue that's been very important in your campaign and one that I think is affecting elections all across the country. Mark Kennedy, you've been there three times. Let me go back to comments you made after your first trip in '03.
"On the whole, the trend [in Iraq] is very positive. ... Our troops ... face ... a collection of terrorists and thugs, of whom there are fewer each day." That's just dead wrong.
REP. KENNEDY: If you looked at the time in 2003, months afterwards, were we potentially a bit optimistic? Possibly. And we've seen more challenges than we expected, no question. But if you look at what's happened, we have trained 300,000 Iraqi troops. We have a government that is a unity government.
This is the number one issue in this race, and there are stark differences between my opponent, Ms. Klobuchar, and myself. She says it's a distraction. I think that it is one of the central fronts in the war on terror. Osama bin Laden and Zarqawi says as well. She has set out a specific timetable for bringing our troops home that would tell the terrorists when they can take over an oil-rich country as a sanctuary for terrorists. And I believe we ought to be bringing our troops home as soon as we can after we're sure the terrorists can't win. And she's also come out against a bill funding body armor for our troops that a majority of Democrats join me in supporting. We have no higher priority than to support our troops in time of war, and we have to win this war on terror.
MR. RUSSERT: But 10 months ago you said "Progress was clear, we're making great strides." Why shouldn't voters in Minnesota say, "This is rosy-colored glasses. It's not reality. There were no weapons of mass destruction and the level of sectarian violence is at an all-time high and Congressman Kennedy is saying, 'Everything's fine. We're making progress.'"
REP. KENNEDY: I never said everything's fine, but we are making progress.
MR. RUSSERT: "Progress is clear. We're making great strides. It's very positive"?
REP. KENNEDY: Each and every year I go back to Iraq. I see a government that is further down the path of being independent and addressing serious issues. Each and every year I go back, their military is more closely—more fully developed and taking over more and more of the responsibilities for us. The path is to make sure that terrorists can't win. And by so doing, allow us to bring our troops home. But we also need to make sure we're taking care of ourselves here at home. Again, key differences in the war on terror. Ms. Klobuchar has come for weakening the Patriot Act that has allowed us to have five years without a terrorist attack on our country. She's come out against making sure that we were paying attention when al-Qaeda was talking to somebody in America to make sure that we knew what plots they were planning. And she came out against a bill to make sure that we can get the intelligence we need from those we hold in custody to prevent future attacks. We cannot let the same poor judgment that Ms. Klobuchar has shown, that has made Minneapolis more dangerous, to be in the U.S. Senate, making America less safe.
MR. RUSSERT: Knowing what you know today, if the CIA came to you and said, "Congressman Kennedy, Saddam Hussein does not have weapons of mass destruction," would you still vote to go into Iraq?
REP. KENNEDY: We acted on the information that we knew at the time.
MR. RUSSERT: No, but knowing what you know today, would you still vote?
REP. KENNEDY: We acted—you know, you can't really play TiVo and rewind in the real world, but let me just say this: First of all, I stand by my vote. And second of all, we just got done talking about Korea. We just got done talking about consequences for actions. Seventeen U.N. resolutions. If we had let one of the top sponsors of terrorists, that was paying thousands of dollars to those families that had suicide bombers, if we had let 17 U.N. resolutions go by, what chance would we have of North Korea or China paying any attention to the resolution just passed yesterday?
MR. RUSSERT: So you'd still go into Iraq?
REP. KENNEDY: I stand by my vote. We can't rewind. We acted on the information we knew at the time and acted correctly.
MR. RUSSERT: Ms. Klobuchar, you said on your Web site, "2006 ... should be a year of transition in which we bring a significant number of our troops home." This is October, now, of 2006. You told the Star Tribune in Minneapolis, "I am saying change the course. I believe that we need to bring a significant number of our troops home. ... One would hope that by 2007, we would have withdrawn the vast majority of our troops [from Iraq]." That's next—a matter of months from now. Is that still your position?
MS. KLOBUCHAR: Tim, you know, the congressman is talking about body armor, and of course I support body armor for our troops, I support winning this war on terror by being smart, I supported the Patriot Act. But I will say this: the best way that we can protect our troops is to get this policy right, and I believe that that means changing course in Iraq.
We need to transition to Iraqi governance, we need to send the clear message that they have to take control of their own government, and that means no permanent military bases. The congressman and I differ on this. This means not saying 2010 we're going to have the same number of troops. And we need to be more accountable for the help that we're giving Iraq.
You look at what's been happening here, you know, $10 billion in cost overruns with Halliburton, putting a 24-yer-old in charge of the stock exchange with no financial experience, building a military academy for $75 million for the police and then finding out the plumbing isn't right so they have to demolish part of it. I believe that we do need to start bringing our troops home. Clearly, at this time, this late date in mid-October, we can't bring a significant number home. We have to be reasonable. I have never been one to say "Bring them all home tomorrow." I have never subscribed to one of those mandatory dates, because I understand that, despite my opposition to the war from the beginning, that we have to be responsible about how we bring our troops home.
MR. RUSSERT: But you did say, "Bring home a significant number this year," and you're saying now that's probably not doable. What about a "vast majority in 2007," which is what you said also?
MS. KLOBUCHAR: These predictions were built on the promises and the predictions of progress from this administration, and we simply haven't seen that. So you have to be reasonable in what you're going to do here. But let me tell you this, you cannot solve a problem that you don't admit exists, and that is what's going on here with the congressman. This war has basically devolved into a civil war. Eight times the number of deaths were caused by sectarian violence other than by bombs. You have Shiite militia roaming the neighborhoods and taking young men, putting them in cars, shooting them in the head and dumping them out on the streets. This is a civil war, and, yes, we need to be more accountable and do a better job of training the police, but we also have to realize that this solution isn't going to be more boots on the ground, it's going to be a diplomatic and political solution. It's—we have done this before with even more difficult situations. This war, as of Thanksgiving, will have lasted longer than World War II. So I believe that we need to bring people together and help this country to come up with a diplomatic and political solution in addition to giving them the tools that they need.
MR. RUSSERT: Speaking of predictions, Congressman Kennedy, this is what you said six months ago. "I fully expect that over the next year there will be a significant number of troops who will be returning home because of success in Iraq." Flat wrong.
REP. KENNEDY: I said in November that...
MR. RUSSERT: But this is February, six months ago.
REP. KENNEDY: ...in February that we expected troops. We have less troops, not as much as I would like, we've run into tougher patches...
MR. RUSSERT: A significant number. Why can't you say you were wrong?
REP. KENNEDY: I was wrong in the significant number, I was right in terms of the fact that there are less troops, but I'm also right in saying, whatever I said, I'm going to support what the commanders in the field say. And when we talk about accountability—let's talk about accountability.
Ms. Klobuchar refuses to be accountable for coming out against the bill funding body armor for our troops. She refuses to be accountable for statements that she says, and, and you didn't get the June of this year NPR, where she said she wanted more than half the troops out this year and all of them out by next year. That is a clear timetable. That is irresponsible. And she's also—continues to try to mislead people, not just about her own record and where's she's taken positions, but about my record as well. I never voted for permanent bases. I voted for making sure that we could have an agreement as to keeping our troops in a sovereign country and making sure that we had the base protection that would keep our troops safe. We need to bring our troops home as soon as we can, after we're sure the terrorists can't win. But we don't need to let politicians' predictions or anything else drive this, it has to be the commanders in the field and what is going to achieve that end.
MR. RUSSERT: To that end, Ms. Klobuchar, there was a question asked of you back in March. "QUESTION: So your desire to withdraw troops does not depend on the commanders agreeing with it. They should be told to do it and just told to find the best way to do it. AMY KLOBUCHAR: Correct."
And then this: "If the president is unwilling to provide a plan [for the drawdown of American troops], Congress should call upon the Joint Chiefs of Staff to do so."
So you would overrule the military commanders and you think the Senate has the authority to direct order the Joint Chiefs of Staff to draw down troops?
MS. KLOBUCHAR: Tim, no, I don't believe that. What I was saying here is because the president refuses to bring us a plan and deal with this as it is, as a civil war, that we need to have the direction coming from Washington. Of course we should listen to the commanders on the ground. In fact, there's generals that have returned from there that say we need to change course. Senator Warner just came back from there and said "Give this a few months, and we need to change course." Jim Baker went over there and started talking about this.
What I'm hearing is a general consensus around what I'm talking about, that we cannot, as Congressman Kennedy and the president are talking about, just stay the course indefinitely with more troops dying, over $300 billion spent.
And the idea is to listen to the commanders on the ground, but to have the direction come from Washington that we need to change course. I was talking about bringing the Joint Chiefs in to discuss with Congress what the plan should be, because I just do not see it coming from this commander in chief.
MR. RUSSERT: If we withdrew from Iraq and a full-blown civil war erupted, what do we do?
MS. KLOBUCHAR: First of all, we aren't going to completely withdraw from Iraq at this moment. And I believe that we need to redeploy some of these troops to surrounding areas so that they would be ready to come in. And I'm not suggesting...
MR. RUSSERT: Where? Where would we put them?
MS. KLOBUCHAR: Well, in Afghanistan, where we've seen a complete, a deterioration of the situation there, in part because we have put singular focus on Iraq, and to surrounding areas, perhaps Kuwait, other places that we can keep these troops so that can come back in if necessary. Again, reaching out to regional powers to get their help. You cannot, you cannot talk about this unless you acknowledge that this is a civil war that's going on here. Yes, there's terrorists there. In fact, 16 agencies of this government who deal with national intelligence said that this war has fomented more terrorism.
So if we look at what we need to do about the war against terror, we need to get—to be smart about this, we need to focus on Afghanistan again and get that situation under control, we need to beef up our homeland security where the 9/11 Commission has given us D's and F's. You know, the president identified the "axis of evil" when he talked about North Korea and Iran. We have them both now talking about nuclear weapons.
MR. RUSSERT: Republicans have been talking about Iraq in a very different way. Jim Baker, the head of the Iraq study group, former secretary of state for former President Bush: "I happen to think ... that there are alternatives between ..." the course and cut and run and staying the course. Negotiate a settlement. Strong suggestion.
And this from John Warner, Republican, chairman of the Armed Services Committee: "I assure you, in two or three months, if this thing hasn't come to fruition and if this level of violence is not under control, ... I think it's a responsibility of our government ... to determine: is there a change of course we should take? And I wouldn't take off the table any option at this time."
So you talk about timetables. The chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Republican, has basically said to the Iraqis, "You have 90 days to stop the violence or we could very well change the course, and every option's on the table."
REP. KENNEDY: Senator Warner has also said and rejected a specific timetable for withdrawal. And I agree with Senator Warner. We ought to, not just in two or three months, but at every stage along the way, say, "Is there adjustments we need to be making?' We have been making adjustments. I've seen the adjustments in the three years I've been there. And we need to continue to make adjustments.
But when you say that the solution, as Miss Klobuchar says, is diplomatic and political, you can't negotiate with people that are ruthless and glory in killing innocent women and children. We need to make sure that terrorists can't win so that we can bring our troops home as quickly as possible.
MR. RUSSERT: No matter how long it takes?
REP. KENNEDY: We need to make sure that the terrorists can't win. We cannot let Iraq became a sanctuary for terrorists.
MR. RUSSERT: And you believe this war can be won militarily?
REP. KENNEDY: There's no question that we need to also prod the political forces within Iraq, as we have been. And make sure they address some of the key issues that are, that are causing some of the foment, making sure that we get this federalism issue solved. We understand federalism in America; we have states and federal government. We also need to make sure they get this "Who owns the oil?" I think they ought to take a path where the Iraqi people own the oil, just like they do in Alaska. We also need to make sure that they see the progress on the ground.
But, these are steps that need to be pushed politically, but they can't be done if we're saying, "We're going to pull our troops away and leave a young democracy without the kind of support necessary to make sure it has time to get a political solution."
MR. RUSSERT: You invoked Miss Klobuchar's name; I'll give her a chance to respond.
MS. KLOBUCHAR: Tim, this is just more of the same. More of the same of this administration, more of the same with Congressman Kennedy. And, you know, I just heard Trent Lott a few weeks ago, the press asked him, "What do, what do you think about Iraq?" and he said to the reporters, "You are the only ones obsessing about Iraq. Real people in the real world aren't obsessing about Iraq." Well, I guess he didn't talk to the mom up in Mahnomen, Minnesota, whose child is going on his second tour of Iraq and she can't sleep anymore. Or Claremont Anderson in western Minnesota, who's driven hundreds of miles to come to our events, and every time he cries when someone asks a question about Iraq because his child was killed over there.
These are real people in the real world who are looking for solutions. And the way to get this right for our troops is to give them equipment that they deserve, but also to get this policy right, and to admit that we need to change course—not do anything radical, not bring all the troops home right away—but to pursue a diplomatic and political solution. And I don't think that it's right for Congressman Kennedy to criticize me for that when members of his own party and experts in this area are saying the same thing.
MR. RUSSERT: Well, what question would you ask him?
MS. KLOBUCHAR: I would ask him how come he won't even admit that he was wrong about voting for this war when we are in the situation we're in, when we've spent over $300 billion, when many members of his own party have admitted that this war was not the right direction, that in fact it has fomented terrorism. That we now have 16 agencies of our own government, of President Bush's administration saying that this has added more terrorism in this world.
MR. RUSSERT: Let you answer that question, and ask her one.
REP. KENNEDY: Let's talk about what the 16 agencies said. They said that we are clearly activating terrorists in Iraq, having taken the challenge to them. But they also said we have to prevail. If we don't prevail, it will greatly mushroom this threat, let it grow in size, and come to face our future generations, where we wouldn't be able to ask—answer the question that our kids would say to us, "Why did you let this happen?" They said that if we, if we lose, that's what will happen; if we win, we will greatly degrade what's happening on the other side.
And what I would say—what would—what would I ask my opponent: How can you change your position from saying we ought to ignore commanders months ago, that we ought to have a specific timetable, and call that consistent? How can you say you're going to support our troops in the field during a time of war when you came out against a bill funding body armor for our troops that a majority of Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, supported? How can you say that you're going to comply by the 9/11 Commission when you came out for weakening the Patriot Act, when you came out against making sure we were paying attention to what al-Qaeda was saying in this country about plotting future attacks, and you came out against a bill for making sure we could get information from those we hold in custody, and call this bill that John McCain, who still bears the marks of torture, call this bill that is critical for our security a torture bill? How can you be so disrespecting? It's, it's consistent with what her own employees said about her, that this is someone who only cares about her career advancement, and nothing else. How can you criticize not just McCain, but also our troops in the field? Last week, she criticized the way our troops were training Iraqi troops. We need to have somebody with a consistent view on bringing our troops home as soon as we're sure the terrorists can't win.
MR. RUSSERT: A lot of questions there.
MS. KLOBUCHAR: Tim, I would say this is why we're in the mess we're in in Iraq, because of this political gamemanship. Congressman Kennedy didn't even answer my question, and instead proceeded to ask many questions. And I will tell you a few of these answers.
I am committed to this war against terror. I am someone who puts people in jail for a living. I am tough on security. And I will tell you this: I believe that the people on the front line have to have the tools to wire-tap, they have to have the tools to do the surveillance that we need. I supported the Patriot Act, I did support some of the changes that were later made to the Patriot Act with library books, library records and things like that. I also believe that we should have gotten that detainee bill right, something like what was originally passed out at the Senate Armed Services Committee. The Supreme Court gave this Congress a duty, and the Supreme Court said to this Congress, "Get this right." Instead, they passed a very broad bill that I don't believe will meet constitutional muster. I didn't have to take this position, but I feel it's the best position because they were putting their short-term political gain in front of the bigger quest of winning the war against terror so that they could go on Sunday morning talk shows like this one and claim that their opponents were weak on security and weak on terror. I think Democrats should welcome this debate on security. And we're having it in our state, and the people are listening.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to a domestic issue where there's a big difference. Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Klobuchar said that we should roll back the Bush tax cut on those making over $200,000 a year, because the federal debt is now $8 trillion, and we have to get our finances in order, and this is a way of raising revenue.
REP. KENNEDY: She's said a lot of things on taxes. Her own proposal says that she wanted to have a trillion and a half increase in taxes...
MR. RUSSERT: But, but specifically, what about rolling back the tax cut on those who make more than 200,000?
REP. KENNEDY: We have had six million new jobs. The economy was flat on its back after 9/11. We passed tax relief to reward, and people—to let them keep more of their hard-earned money. Families, small business, those that take risk and create jobs. Six million new jobs have been created. We cannot be raising taxes, putting this economy back on its back, and also not growing jobs. We have to keep the approach of keeping spending under control. I'm the author of the line-item veto. I don't understand why we want to build a bridge to nowhere in Alaska, a rain forest in Iowa.
MR. RUSSERT: But you voted for both those proposals.
REP. KENNEDY: I voted for every single Jeff Flake amendment to take out these crazy...(unintelligible)...
MR. RUSSERT: But in final passage, those proposals were legislation you voted for.
REP. KENNEDY: They were, because I support roads, because I support making sure that we're moving forward with key programs. But you ought not to hold a whole bill hostage because there's silly stuff in it. We ought to have a line-item veto for the president, whether Republican or Democrat, to cut that junk out of there, hold Congress accountable, keep spending under control.
MR. RUSSERT: But you have a Republican—you have a Republican president.
REP. KENNEDY: So you can keep taxes low and keep building jobs.
MR. RUSSERT: A Republican House, a Republican Senate, you have a $250 billion deficit, an $8 trillion debt.
REP. KENNEDY: There's no question that I would like the president to take a little bit more leadership on spending. There's no question that we have had obstruction in the U.S. Senate that has bogged down not only our ability to take further steps on fiscal responsibility, but many other things as well. We do need to push forward and make sure that we have strong fiscal measures to keep spending under control.
MR. RUSSERT: Ms. Klobuchar, 57,000 households in Minnesota make over $200,000 a year. A lot of small businesses, people who create the jobs. And you want to come along and pound them with a new tax increase by taking away their tax cut. Why?
MS. KLOBUCHAR: Let me talk about why this is important to me and important to the people of our state. Right now we're in a situation where our debt is approaching $9 trillion, where this administration and this Congress took a $200 billion surplus and turned it into $250 billion deficit. Why does this hurt the people in our state? It's not just some chart on a wall. One out of 12 of the federal tax dollars that they're paying goes to interest on this debt.
And this is my solution: I'm the only candidate in this race that has come out with a plan to balance the budget. First of all, let's look at those $70 billion that's being sheltered in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda for multi-millionaires. That report came out August 1. Get rid of those shelters. That takes in 70 billion. Next, look at capital gains. Not changing the rate, but having a third-party validator like brokerage houses post those because there's underpayment. That brings in $17 billion. Roll back the tax cuts to the Clinton levels, to the top 1 percent, the Clinton levels when we had record jobs produced in this country. That brings another $56 billion in.
Then you go to the discretionary spending. I don't agree with the congressman that this is silly stuff. Even if you reduce half of that discretionary spending, it's $15 billion. Get rid of the no-bid contracts so we have competitive bidding, $10 billion. Go back to the pay-as-you-go rules that we had during the Clinton administration and then reduce these oil subsidies and these drug subsidies they give away.
MR. RUSSERT: Discretionary spending, what programs do you cut?
MS. KLOBUCHAR: Well, first of all, we have had a 50 percent increase in discretionary spending. The Cato Institute identified that.
MR. RUSSERT: What, what specifically?
MS. KLOBUCHAR: And you—well, let's start with the one the congressman voted for, the bridges to nowhere, the rain forest in Iowa, the waterless urinals in Michigan.
MR. RUSSERT: But as you know, 60 percent of our federal revenues go...(network technical difficulties)...Medicare and pensions. Will you go after those?
MS. KLOBUCHAR: I believe that if we can shore up this deficit and balance the budget, that we can then start shoring up Social Security. This Congress has raided $925 billion from Social Security. And you go back to the Clinton administration.
MR. RUSSERT: Would you raise the retirement age?
MS. KLOBUCHAR: I don't believe that is the solution.
MR. RUSSERT: Cost of living increase?
MS. KLOBUCHAR: I don't believe that's the solution. Just think back to the Clinton administration, 1995 balanced the budget. By the year 2000, the plan was to put $200 billion, sock it away for Social Security. We had 15 years on what we have now. Social Security was saved for 15 additional years, now it's been moved back. If we can get that balanced budget in place and we can move on this, we're going to be able to secure Social Security for the future. I believe Social Security is the fundamental way that we can protect people in this country.
MR. RUSSERT: With no changes in the system?
MS. KLOBUCHAR: Look, we can have a bipartisan commission look at those changes. They should be options to be looked at, but it would be a hard sell on me because I believe our priority should be to balance the budget. When you talk to an iron ore mine worker up in northern Minnesota, where my grandpa worked and my dad grew up, it's easy for us to talk about adding age to the retirement. For them, it's a lot harder. So if there is a better way to do this by being fiscally responsible instead of giving, you know, billions of dollars in oil giveaways, I don't lose sleep at night about whether the CEO of Exxon, who's retiring and just made $400 million, whether or not he's doing OK. I'm thinking of those workers in Minnesota.
MR. RUSSERT: Congressman Kennedy, one of the issues in this campaign has been your relationship with George Bush. Here's the National Journal: "At his [Minnesota] GOP convention speech ... Kennedy never mentioned President Bush." And yet the Congressional Quarterly says that during your tenure in Congress, you supported the president 92 percent of the time. Here's a news clip which talks about "Kennedy has been considered a strong Bush ally since joining the House in 2000, according to Minnesota political analysts, who say they are surprised by his ads playing down a party affiliation and making no mention of the president. ...
"'This is a party guy,' said political scientist Lawrence R. Jacobs of the University of Minnesota. 'He ran in a district that leaned pretty heavily Republican, and the way to win in that district is to run as a loyal Republican. Now he's running in a statewide race where the president's approval ratings are poor. ... It's an attempt to reinvent himself.'"
Do you belive that George Bush is a great president?
REP. KENNEDY: I belive history is going to make that decision. This is a guy who's human, like all of us. Has made mistakes, we've all made mistakes. You know, there are things...
MR. RUSSERT: Are you running as a George Bush Republican?
REP. KENNEDY: I'm running as Mark Kennedy. I'm running at a guy who believes strongly in values that I was raised with in Minnesota, the vote's based on what's best for Minnesota families.
MR. RUSSERT: But 92 percent of the time, you voted for President Bush.
REP. KENNEDY: There—you know, I don't where they get those statistics, but I can tell you—you know, they, they only take one out of 10 votes. But I can tell you there are things I disagree with the president on, whether it be No Child Left Behind that I voted against my first year in Congress, or ANWR. There are things that I agree with him on, that you get prosperity for our kids not by raising taxes but by keeping it low, and that we keep our families safe by being on the offense in the war on terror.
But let me just address—we keep hearing Amy Klobuchar walking away from what she said before and trying to mislead people. She comes out against oil subsidies. At the state fair debate, she said that she was for the same energy bill that I voted for. She comes out and says in, in an ad that she's going to save $90 billion, $90 billion, by having government-run prescription drug program on a program that only costs 60 billion. How do you save 90 billion on a program that costs 60 billion? And let me tell you, on Social Security, it's going to be a lot more than a hard sell for me to be raising the retirement age. That is not the solution. I will oppose that. That is just one of many differences on Social Security where she wants to give Social Security to illegal immigrants, which would put billions of dollars at risk on a program that is already strained.
MR. RUSSERT: You can respond to that.
MS. KLOBUCHAR: Thank you. I really appreciate that. I will say that the people of Minnesota don't really care if it's 92 percent or 97 percent. What they care about is the effect that these policies have had on them and the effect that this kind of negative attacks and this kind of gamemanship have had on the people of Minnesota. Congressman Kennedy just started to talk about Social Security benefits for illegal immigrants. I suggest your readers go onto the Star Tribune Web site from yesterday and they can see that the newspaper in Minneapolis and St. Paul came out and said that his claims were completely false, and in fact the bill that he's talking about, which was supported by a Republican senator, Senator Coleman, did not contain that provision.
This is the kind of political gamemanship we have been hearing from the beginning. And the reason...
MR. RUSSERT: So you oppose Social Security for illegal immigrants?
MS. KLOBUCHAR: Yes, I do. And the reason, you know, that he has gone off on his attacks again is that he really didn't want to answer your question. He spent the last few campaigns bragging about how close he was with President Bush, and now he's spending this campaign bragging about how independent he is from President Bush.
You know what the people of Minnesota care about? They care about that their gas prices went up to 3 bucks a gallon this summer, and that is—when they got a long way to work, it's hard to do; that their health care premiums went up 60 percent since he's been in office.
MR. RUSSERT: But, but, but you also—let me just ask you—you, you said a couple things about President Bush to the Pulse of the Twin Cities publication I want to ask you about.
MS. KLOBUCHAR: Mm-hmm.
MR. RUSSERT: "QUESTION: Would you vote to support the Russ Feingold resolution to censure President Bush? AMY KLOBUCHAR: No, not now. QUESTION:
Do you favor the impeachment of President Bush? AMY KLOBUCHAR: No, not now," suggesting that you're open to both censure and impeachment.
MS. KLOBUCHAR: I don't think you should ever rule anything out, but I'm telling you, my focus is not impeachment, it's not censure. My focus is to go to Congress and get something done. The questions were "Would you support these?" And I said, no, I did not.
MR. RUSSERT: "Not now." Hillary Clinton is coming to Minneapolis this week to raise money for you. Do you think she'd make a good president?
MS. KLOBUCHAR: You know, I think there are a number of good Democratic presidential candidates. I'm not weighing in on that. I've got enough to do in Minnesota.
MR. RUSSERT: But you'd be proud to support Hillary Clinton if she was the nominee?
MS. KLOBUCHAR: I believe that any of these Democratic candidates would be better than our current president.
MR. RUSSERT: As you know, Mr. Kennedy, there's a lot of concern amongst Republicans about the war in Iraq, about the Mark Foley page scandal, and there is an article—sorry, comments from the Minnesota Public Radio, an interview with Norm Coleman. And it says here, "Documents filed at [Minnesota television stations] KARE-11, KSTP-TV and WCCO-TV show that the National Republican Senatorial Committee has not bought or scheduled any ad time on behalf of [Mark] Kennedy.
"Republican Senator Norm Coleman," a Republican senator from Minnesota, "acknowledges that Kennedy faces an uphill battle. Coleman said he's encouraging the campaign officials to invest in Minnesota but says they may be more concerned about other contests."
Are the national Republicans pulling out of your race?
REP. KENNEDY: They, they are not. We're getting a lot of good cooperation from the National Republican Senatorial Committee. We just had six senators in last week. I won my first race one-on-one, and I'm happy to win any race that way.
But if I may respond to some of the charges that Miss Klobuchar made, saying in the Star Tribune—a liberal reporter in a liberal paper—got it wrong. If you look at it, she voted for a bill, she said she would support a bill, the Senate immigration bill, that would give 12 million people that didn't have benefits benefits. The paper says, $5 billion cost to Social Security. That's—if, if you included Medicare and Medicaid, that'd be 50 billion. If there's 50 billion more costs, how do you have more costs if you're not supporting something? I would have not supported the bill because of that.
MR. RUSSERT: This is the McCain bill?
REP. KENNEDY: The, the bill...
MR. RUSSERT: The same McCain that you're praising on the torture...
REP. KENNEDY: The, the...
MR. RUSSERT: ...you're criticizing him on immigration.
REP. KENNEDY: I'm not criticizing him on torture, and I am saying that I would have voted against that bill.
MR. RUSSERT: You're praising him on the torture bill. The McCain...
REP. KENNEDY: I, I am criticizing...
MR. RUSSERT: ...bill, which is also supported by President Bush.
REP. KENNEDY: I, I also do not agree with Senator McCain on immigration in that case. But let's go back to what—she supported a bill that had—giving Social Security to illegal immigrants. And when you talk about Bush, people aren't going to be focused on Bush, they're going to be focused on issues. And I can tell you, Tim, I've been all over the state of Minnesota. People are finding a lot of support for my policies of keeping spending under control so we can keep taxes low, and making sure that health care's controlled by doctors and patients, not lawyers and big government. And making sure that we bring our troops home as soon as we can, after we're sure the terrorists can't win.
I don't see the kind of support out there for Ms. Klobuchar's, you know, proposals to have a trillion and a half increase in taxes. The long list of taxes she's covered isn't going to cover a trillion and a half. It just tells you, when a liberal says they're going to soak the rich, the middle class gets drenched. They don't see a lot of support out there for giving Social Security to illegal immigrants, for rationing prescription drugs, and for bringing the same policies that has made, and the same bad judgment that's made Minneapolis having twice the murder rate of New York City under her tenure—talk about accountability—to the U.S. Senate.
MR. RUSSERT: I'll consider that a closing statement. I started with you.
I'll give you 30 seconds, and we're out of time.
MS. KLOBUCHAR: OK. I believe that I will be a good senator for the state of Minnesota if they give me that honor. I'm the granddaughter of a miner, I'm the daughter of a newspaper man and a teacher. I'm a mother, I'm a wife, I'm a prosecutor, and I'm an advocate. And I have the determination to make change in Washington. And if the people of Minnesota give me that opportunity, I will get things done for them.
MR. RUSSERT: Amy Klobuchar, Mark Kennedy, big differences on big issues. We thank you for sharing them with our viewers.
Our Senate Debate series continues in two weeks. Another closely watched Senate race, Maryland. Democratic Representative Ben Cardin vs. Republican Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele. Right here in two weeks.
And we'll be right back.
MR. RUSSERT: That's all for today. We'll be back next week with an exclusive Sunday morning interview with Democratic Illinois Senator Barack Obama. That's next week, right here on MEET THE PRESS. If it's Sunday, it's MEET THE PRESS.
Hang in there, Buffalo, help's coming.


text:
nilovett on Family Tree Circles
view: full | list
Journals and Posts
Looking for descendants of Clifton FORD, Cattaraugus Cty, NY
Clifton FORD, son of Charles FORD and Ida (LOVETTE)FORD.
Grandson of Amasa and Maryette (COLVIN)FORD and Grandson of Thomas Henry LOVETT and Martha (HAWKINS) LOVETT.
Do not have a birth year for Clifton FORD, but do know it was before 1891. Grandson Clifton FORD is mentioned in the Last Will and Testament of Thomas Henry LOVETT, d.Nov. 1891 in Ashford, NY. Originally the Thomas Henry LOVETT family lived in East Otto, Cattaraugus Cty, NY
Birth years for Clifton's parents: Charles FORD, ABT 1857, Ida LOVETTE, 1859, East Otto, NY.
(Note: The Lovett family seemed to drop or add the "e" on the end of the name on a whim, but most records show Ida used the spelling of LOVETTE, while her father, Thomas Henry, used the LOVETT spelling.)
The sister of Charles Ford, Estella FORD, b. ABT 1862, also married into the LOVETT family. Estella FORD married Herbert LOVETT. After Herbert died in 1885, Estella partnered with Horace LOVETT, brother to Herbert and Ida.
Looking for LOVETTE/LOVETT family in New York/Massachusetts
Thomas Henry LOVETT (dropped the e from LOVETTE, and used Henry as his first name) b. 06/06/about 1822- We think in Madison Country, NY.
Married 09/14/1844 -Martha Marie HAWKINS, daughter of John HAWKINS.
Henry and Martha LOVETT raised their family in East Otto, Cattaraugus County, NY.
Louisa Ann LOVETT-1847, m.1865 Frederick Smith SCHAFFNER
Francis Ruth LOVETT-1849-(died in infancy),
Horace B. LOVETT-1851, m.(1) Mary WHITE, (2) Estella FORD
Herbert B. LOVETT-1853, m. Estella FORD
Charles Henry LOVETT-1855, m. Emelia COCHRAN
Ida Amelia LOVETTE-1859. m. Charles FORD
Looking for the parents of Thomas Henry LOVETT/LOVETTE. The only clue that we have is that his father was born in Massachusetts. Hoping someone can give us some help with finding a LOVETT/LOVETTE family that went from Massachusetts to Madison County, New York, prior to 1822.
Also hoping to make connections with other listed families.
- Displaying 1-2 of 2 Journals
- 1
- of1