Montana Politics

Denny Rehberg and Derek Brown Quit Early

Shares

Quitting early is popular among this year’s Republican elected officials.

Representative Denny Rehberg, who still represents Montana until his term ends on Jan. 2, has been mysteriously silent.  As Montana Street Fighter reported, he has stopped making public appearances, did not call Tester on Election Night, and won’t comment on legislative goals for his remaining term. He deleted his official Twitter and Facebook accounts, cutting off contact with the people he represents. Even if Rehberg did little legislative work, the next month is particularly important as Congress must act on the “fiscal cliff,” the combination of expiring tax and spending provisions that could change the federal budget by over $5 trillion over the next 10 years.

Lewis & Clark County Commissioner Derek Brown has followed a similar pattern. He set the date of his resignation for Jan 1, but has stopped coming to work, prompting a legal question at the County whether he should still be paid. According to the Independent Record, “he has already cleaned out his office and does not intend to participate in any commission activities in his remaining time on board, barring a crisis or exceptional situation.”

The two officials are obligated to fulfill their contract to the people who elected them. As long as they are getting paid, Rehberg and Brown should do their jobs.

Brown’s salary for his “six-week vacation” is approximately $9,000. As a member of Congress without a leadership position, Rehberg gets paid an annual salary of $174,000, so the taxpayers are paying him $29,000 for November and December, when he’s not working. Similarly, Rehberg’s staff are paid slightly less than $1 million, or approximately $153,000 during these two months.

About the author

Tyler Evilsizer

Raised in Helena, Tyler’s particularly passionate about the environment, transparency, and wonky budget policy. The views expressed are his own.

53 Comments

Click here to post a comment

Leave a Reply

  • Your cupboard is a bit bare to drag Rehberg through this. I swear if he didn’t exist you guys would have to invent him to have something to unify your hate, not unlike the Soviets who fought WWII for 50 years after it’s end to keep it’s people focused on the “enemy.”

    As to Tester’s Sportsmens bill, looks awfully similar to Rehberg’s Sportsmens Heritage Act which already passed the House. Perhaps you should be asking Tester to support it and move on to the fiscal cliff. As to contacting Rehberg’s office, just pick up the phone. Sheesh.

    • Hyperbole much, Craig? Rehberg did nothing for 12 years save name post offices, get in drunken accidents involving horse and boat, and defend a statue. And now you think the people who worked hard to defeat him should be ashamed for pointing out that he does exactly what he always did, NOTHING?

  • There’s a lot of difference’s between Tester’s Sportsman’s Act of 2012 and Rob Bishop’s Sportsmen’s Heritage Act. Tester rightly opposes the Bishop act because it would cause some severe problems due to it’s inartful drafting, and the ridiculous amendment regarding the Antiquities Act.

    Tester’s bill wraps up 20 individual bills and packages them together in a very non-controversial way, unless you think the EPA should be in charge of wildlife management, which the Obama and Bush Administrations both agreed was inappropriate.

    The Bishop bill (which Rehberg only co-sponsored) would eliminate basic protections on wilderness, erode Theodore Roosevelt’s legacy and decrease hunter opportunity. Tester’s bill increases hunter opportunity, keeps funding importan conservation programs and creates certainty in the regulatory realm where lead projectiles are concerned.

  • We need to tweak the Constitution so that newly elected members of Congress take office immediately after being elected. No lame ducks, no lame duck sessions.

    And Rehberg? I suspect he believed his tracking polls, realized he was going to lose, and threw in the towel a few days before the election. Unless he’s ill, his behavior after the election is described best as pouting.

  • Since both got less than 50%, Tester having pushed the passenger eject button on progressives and environmentalists and then having his sorry ass rescued by a $million injection of Citizens United money, I ask with all sincerity that all of you go ahead and celebrate your victory, as Democrats do, without regard to any substantial matters, as Democrats do. Your partisan fellows have gone back to sleep now, and all’s well. Yeah, Tester’s a Democrat, yeah, he won, so yeah, be happy.

    But please, out of human kindness, do not hold yourself out as people who care about our forests, our commons, our environment, preservation of hunting space.That rubs salt in the would. And please, don’t say it would have been worse with Rehberg – with him some Democrats might join us in fighting the very same legislation you are now supporting. This is the inanity of party politics, to let a label override a man’s true work on behalf of his true constituency, his donors.

    Though flush with cash from unspecified donors, Democrats, you are in my view bankrupt.

    • There’s no difference..blah blah..fallacious reasoning..blah blah…lack of evidence..blah ..conspiracy..blah…indoctrination..blah..oligarchy…snore…..

        • That’snot the position you argue from though is it? Let’s not move the goalposts and forget that you add a second premise. You consistently argue that it doesn’t matter where the money comes from. In an earlier post, PW pointed out to you that money going to Tester came from groups with opposing viewpoints and competing endgoals as those groups that gave money to Rehberg. To which you responded with babble about oligarchy, ignoring real differences and placing an unjustified weight upon similarities. What you need to defend is probabilities. I’ve said it before. You confuse logical possibility with probability. The latter is all that matters.

          The hypothesis that Rehberg and Tester are indistinguishible fails. It fails in actual observation, and it fails when we consider of the pragmatism of donors. The meaninglessness of your objections continue.

          Of course it is unfortunate that under current law, unspecified donors can give unreal amounts of money to candidates. But then again, there is a stark difference between Tester and Rehberg as to how they view the allowance of this type of campaign funding. One of them has been vocally opposed to it from the get-go. You might say that if one were actually opposed to it they would not accept such money. That wouldn’t be true and it wouldn’t be rational. Winning is everything in politics, for good reason. Candidates must be pragmatic and increase their probability of winning through whatever legal means they can. Especially when their opponents are doing the same thing. Rationality is about winning, and rationalists maximize. So the fact that Tester recieved and used such monies does little to support your hypothesis. Given all of the evidence of actual differences between the candidates and their donors, you need alot of evidence to overcome the initial low priors your hypothesis faces. Evidence that doesn’t exist.

          So again. You need to show why your hypothesis is more probable than that which is intuitively and empirically far more supported. You haven’t and I doubt you will.

          • “You consistently argue that it doesn’t matter where the money comes from. In an earlier post, PW pointed out to you that money going to Tester came from groups with opposing viewpoints and competing endgoals as those groups that gave money to Rehberg.”

            PW does not know where that money came from any more than you do. And it doesn’t matter where the money came from if the problem is money. But you are shifting as we speak as you … there’s a bill on the horizon – no one to protect us now from FJRA, as Bingaman is gone, but it could be something else too. We’ll find out soon enough. That $1 million bought something from a corrupt man who was desperate to be reelected.

            “…ignoring real differences and placing an unjustified weight upon similarities. What you need to defend is probabilities. I’ve said it before. You confuse logical possibility with probability. The latter is all that matters.”

            That’s incomprehensible drivel.

            “The hypothesis that Rehberg and Tester are indistinguishible fails. It fails in actual observation, and it fails when we consider of the pragmatism of donors. The meaninglessness of your objections continue.”

            If you don’t know the donors, how do you know them to be pragmatic? Worse than that, in saying “pragmatic,” you really saying “apolitical,” which is nonsense. Large political donors have always wanted subsidy, tax breaks, free access to the commons, protection from competition and regulation. The return on investment in a politician can be phenomenal – a few thousand can return millions! I doubt that money going to Tester is any different than that going to anyone else.

            “But then again, there is a stark difference between Tester and Rehberg as to how they view the allowance of this type of campaign funding. One of them has been vocally opposed to it from the get-go. You might say that if one were actually opposed to it they would not accept such money. That wouldn’t be true and it wouldn’t be rational.”

            You cannot judge politicians by their words. That’s basic. If it were only words that mattered, you’d win, as Democrats always sound different when running than when holding office.

            “So the fact that Tester recieved and used such monies does little to support your hypothesis. Given all of the evidence of actual differences between the candidates and their donors, you need alot of evidence to overcome the initial low priors your hypothesis faces. Evidence that doesn’t exist.”

            You have started with your conclusion, failing to offer evidence. The candidates are barely different, and you don’t know who their donors are. I agree, one set of donors wants certain favors and appointments and the other might differ on specifics, but unless you can find something in it for us, you’ve got nothing. Tester is backed by the timber lobby, Rehberg by oil. Do I care? Both are corrupt.

            Democrats are now the party of aggressive war, torture, secret prisons, drone attacks, civilian deaths, assassination, indefinite detention for Americans and tax cuts for the wealthy, austerity and bondage to the insurance cartel. Obama will soon attack Social Security and Medicare if his plans to strike a “grand bargain” are for real. Those are significant similarities. Yes, they talk different. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was nonplussed when someone asked her about indefinite detention, didn’t even know Obama supported it. How can we support you when you don’t even know what you support?

            I mentioned to someone recently that I understand firebrands. I see that people with strong beliefs, like fascists and Randians and secessionists band together and fight so hard, no matter how wrong I believe them to be. Sometimes I am amazed at the energy that these people put into their causes, almost religious fervor.

            What I do not understand is why people of no spirit, no solid beliefs, no steadfast intentions and no fiery energy for a cause band together, as Democrats do, in order to accomplish nothing. You make no sense.

            • Mark, your are irrational, arguing against yourself in the same post. Again.

              “If you don’t know the donors, how do you know them to be pragmatic?”

              So your position is that people will just throw money at a candidate regardless of their interests? Like I said. Probabilities. You seem oblivious.

              “Worse than that, in saying “pragmatic,” you really saying “apolitical,” which is nonsense”

              No. I’m not. I said pragmatic. It’s not complicated. Hello straw man.

              “Large political donors have always wanted subsidy, tax breaks, free access to the commons, protection from competition and regulation”

              So your position is that all large political donations are inherently corrupt, regardless of where they come from? To quote you: You have started with your conlusion, failing to offer evidence.

              “You cannot judge politicians by their words”

              This is actually fallacious. It would be correct to say you cannot judge politicians SOLELY from their words, but you’re attacking a strawman. Again. Numerous differences in ACTION have been highlighted to you. You just refuse to acknowledge them any weight.

              Then comes the red flag that makes me wonder if you believe your nonsense or if you enjoy trolling.

              “I agree, one set of donors wants certain favors and appointments and the other might differ on specifics”

              Wait! So groups DO donate money to support their interests? You’ve changed your mind in the timespan of typing one post. Amazing.

              “Democrats are now the party of……..blah blah blah”

              That’s truly irrelevant when comparing two candidates, recognizing that one will win, and choosing the one representing values closest to your desires, and goals. Which is what the Tester-Rehberg discussion is about.

            • But you blah blah blahed right through the best part! I said “Democrats are now the party of aggressive war, torture, secret prisons, drone attacks, civilian deaths, assassination, indefinite detention for Americans and tax cuts for the wealthy, austerity and bondage to the insurance cartel.”

              You said “blah blah blah!” You cannot force yourself to take ownership of your own party platform. Interesting.

              “So your position is that people will just throw money at a candidate regardless of their interests?”

              No – my position is that people will throw money at a candidate depending on his willingness to address their interests. One step above that level is common interest – all financiers are buying candidates, and none are seeking public goods.

              “So your position is that all large political donations are inherently corrupt, regardless of where they come from?”

              Yes. By definition. Was I not clear about my attitude that private funding of campaigns is inherently corrupt? Have I not used the word “corrupt” often enough to make my point that private financing of campaigns is corrupt?

              ” Numerous differences in ACTION have been highlighted to you. You just refuse to acknowledge them any weight.”

              You can use inductive reasoning and cherry pick and assign importance to an issue after knowing that one or the other voted for or against it, but worse yet, their vote is rarely determinant of the outcome. Voting records are window dressing. So you can puff all you want about supposed differences, but there’s damned little out there in the way of convincing evidence. That is a big defect in our system of governance – the ease with which office holders can lie and manipulate their constituencies. That’s what I am talking about when I say that you guys fall asleep after elections. Tester will now go his merry way and betray you for six years, and then you’ll be back fighting for him again.

              There is no punishment for him if he does the wrong thing by us, and no reward if he betrays his donors and works for us. Our system is corrupt. Have I mentioned that?

              There’s very few true means of judgment – Tester’s FJRA was telling, done in secret, use of Pew-financed enviros and the usual industry suspects, working behind closed doors, presented as fait accompli. That’s fairly telling. His words mean nothing, most of his votes mean nothing, but that told me what I needed to know. He’s corrupt.

              “Wait! So groups DO donate money to support their interests? You’ve changed your mind in the timespan of typing one post. Amazing.”

              WTF? Of course people spend money on politicians in return for favors. Timber lobby wants Tester, oil and gas wants Rehberg. Nothing in it for the public, as both timber and oil and gas are out to screw us. Get it? Amazing.

              “That’s truly irrelevant when comparing two candidates, recognizing that one will win, and choosing the one representing values closest to your desires, and goals. Which is what the Tester-Rehberg discussion is about.”

              That’s the most meaningless, airiest, fluffy and pointless dodge I’ve ever seen. The whole point of this debate is how to determine which one is real or fake, usually both, and when finding that both are corrupt, trying to find ways to work in a democratic system for public good and justice. Obviously voting for the lesser of two hacks is not the way to go. As they say, if voting had any meaning, it would be illegal.

              So if voting is meaningless, what to do? Therein lay the question that all serious people eventually have to face.

              • Hmmm…So Democrats end an aggressive war responsible for tens of thousands of civilian deaths, refrain from starting any new ones, and somehow THEY are the party of aggressive war? It’s not blah blah blah because its a trivial charge, but rather because it’s a trumped up one, to be polite (absurd, to be frank).

                • The Democrats did nothing more than follow through on the plans in place under agreements made under Bush in Iraq and only reluctantly. You know this. Your repeated claim that Obama got us out of Iraq is a cheap talking point, demonstrably false. He tried to keep us in that country, but the war effort failed in many ways and he had to move troops to neighboring countries.

                  “He” amped up the attack on Afghanistan/Pakistan. They shunted Libya off to NATO. Syria/Lebanon is seemingly being done covertly, and this is an interesting pattern – with each new war there is less direct involvement by the US, which indicates to me that 9/11 might have worn off somewhat. That’s a bit scary. We might need a booster shot.

                  I’ll entertain your “two party” fantasy to a degree to say yes, aggressive war is the child of both parties, and at this time it appears that the Democrats are delegating much of it, or have simply gone underground on much of it.

                  But end it there please, as I don’t for a second think that the aggressive wars borne of 9/11 are in any way affected by elections, As evidence, I offer up the 2006 referendum, where Iraq was central, and after which the Democrats, having run against the war, amped up funding.

                • BTW, a respectable British polling outfit, ORB, placed Iraqi war casualties at 1.2 million. That’s more in line with my outlook on real war objectives, which were depopulation, demoralization, the total terror experience and control of resources. Most of US troop activity centered around nighttime Gestapo raids, dehumanizing and terrifying and done to everyone. It is a continuing fascist effort and a moveable feast. State boundaries are happenstance.

                  Your continual refrain, that elections affect US foreign policy, is unfounded. Elections are pressure release valves, nothing more.

              • “The whole point of this debate is how to determine which one is real or fake, usually both, and when finding that both are corrupt, trying to find ways to work in a democratic system for public good and justice.

                No, that’s not the point, as I have been quite clear.

                Never have I said I am a Democrat. Always I have said that an individual could vote for Tester and be perfectly rational, identifying genuine differences between him and Rehberg that effect real people in positive ways.

                You fail in demonstrating they are all the same. Instead, working from the premise that I accept all of your sweeping generalizations about politics. (The blah, blah, blah) I don’t, and neither will most people. Until you recognize that, your points will be meaningless. Begging the question, and containing assumptions that don’t jive with the vast majority of people, regardless of their political affiliation.

                You are far to certain about uncertain things to be taken seriously.

                • You’re not a Democrat. Good grief. And you’ve yet to show me one of those differences between the two – I’ll admit I make it difficult, demanding substantive claims rather than reverse-engineered voting records, and real action instead of talking points.

                  But I want to take you seriously, Mr. non-Democrat Saying something meaningful.

            • Mark! Good to see you’ve changed your tune. At one time, it was ‘follow the money’. Now it is merely ‘recognize the existence of money, and condemn it.’

              So far, I’ve seen no evidence that the source of LCVs money, or the intentions behind it, are anything other than ‘as advertised’. However, following your now outdated advice, and I asked myself, cui bono?

              Certainly not the same people funding Rehberg. After all, if there’s hundreds of thousands of dollars that says that Rehberg is the candidate that makes sense for the oil, gas, and mining industries. So, who benefits from Tester winning? Not oil and gas companies, not mining companies. Of course I have to admit the possibility that the LCV got the money for some other source, but that lacks evidence, and there is plenty of reason to believe that the money came from people opposed to oil and gas exploration, mining, and the other interests betting their money on Rehberg. Otherwise, it would have made no difference to those donors whether Tester won or lost.

              • I’ve not changed my tune, and you’ve yet to follow the money. I’ve been at this for many years, and have consistently claimed that money in politics is a corrupting influence and that private funding of campaigns is corrupt, per se. Now that CU has removed the pretense that corporations were not funding campaigns, we are at least more open about our corruption.

                The LCV money is dirty. Know how I know? One, that group fronted for Baucus even though he’s the anti-environment guy, and two, they won’t tell you where they got it. I’m deep, I tell you. Deep.

                Would you please back off oil/gas versus the clean money that Tester took? There’s no shortage of people who want to buy politicians, so your decision to pick one industry and one politician and ignore anything around Tester is nothing more than a rhetorical device. If you are reduced to that, and that alone, please resign the argument. You’ve lost.

                FYI: Here’s the Canadian system as I understand it: There are strict limits on the size of contributions that only individuals can give to politicians. If I give $200 to a candidate, I then take a credit for 80% of that on my tax return. That way, the money is mostly public, but privately directed. That’s not perfect, and corruption finds a way, but at least they have the right idea – money in large doses corrupts absolutely. That’s why our system cannot be fixed.

                • Your evidence is weak, in that it consists of “The LCV is corrupt because they supported a candidate I don’t like.” Ever stop to think that unlike you, the LCV pays attention to what State they are in, and what the alternatives are, when they decide which candidate to support.

                  I like how when I do follow the money, and you don’t like where it leads, you tell me to drop the point. One industry overwhelmingly backs Rehberg.

                  I’m not, and have never said, that it makes Rehberg more corrupt. I’m saying that it shows that there is a difference between the candidates. What you refer to as corruption is totally legal, and while I agree it is a big problem, it’s a foolish reason to to vote for someone.

                  If all the candidates have in common is that they follow the same laws about campaign finance, you have a poor point. I repeat – you told me to follow the money. The money leads to the firm conclusion that there is an enormous difference in what is expected between the two parties.

                  But, of course, you don’t care. You love the Canadian system, in spite of the fact that this system has approved an oil exploitation project that has the potential to have serious global environmental impacts.

                • First, I’m not sure it qualifies as public money. Would you count money I gave to my church as public money just because I claimed a charitable deduction?

                  Second, the US does have this system, to an extext. Nine states, including Montana, allow tax incentives for small-dollar political donations. In Montana, you can deduct up to $100/year for political contributions.

              • LCV is a front group, called ‘Astroturf’ when the “other party” uses the device. They could as easily be called “Exxon” and achieve the same purpose, but naming matters in politics. It’s part of the illusion.

                There are not significant differences between candidates in a privately financed system, as the candidates are funded by less than 1% of the population. 99% of us have no influence over candidates. That’s why our interests are not served unless we are informed, organized and energized. Americans are none of those things. Democrats take all of that energy and waste it. You’re supposed to be our counter-wealth party. That is dark comedy.

                Tyler, it is the exact definition of public money, since the source of the funds is the public treasury. The tax rebate idea, brilliant in my view, merely allows self-direction.

                PW, Canada is more and more resembling the US – Harper seems to be a fixture. They wanted an election to get rid of him, the Queen intervened to save his sorry ass (since LCV does not operate up there and so could not help him.)

          • Actually, I am asking to figure out which million you’re worried about. Although, there is a difference in scale from giving Rick Hill an extra 50% of his campaign budget and $1 million spent independently on a $40 million race.

            • You complained mightily not only about the amount of money going to Hill, but its anonymous sourcing. When Tester was put in the same boat you learned arithmetic, and decided that a million dollars, even if it turned the election at the end, did not matter.

              “I won’t insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said.”
              ? William F. Buckley Jr.

        • “our forests, our commons, our environment, preservation of hunting space.” Jon cares about all of these. Stop being such a self righteous ass. I’m so tired of people like you (I mean, don’t get me wrong.. I was just like you in.. high school and freshmen year of college). In your world there is no progress because no progress is perfect and thus, it’s not perfect.

          • Actual evidence would be useful to support your case, but you are not expressing a political opinion. “John cares blah blah blah” is an expression of faith.

            I get so tired of people like you who vote on faith, fall asleep, and come back and vote again, on faith. Politicians are not figures to be worshiped or trusted. They are to be monitored and disciplined. Tester screwed environmentalists, so they did not support him this year. That is proper behavior. He had to take a $million in CU money to get his sorry ass reelected.

            You make me sick. It’s people like you who are the reason that Democrats are so useless.

            • It is “Jon”, idiot. And you are again starting with belief and then attempting to club people with your religion. No. Just no. Politicians are not figures to be worshiped, nor are they figures to be “monitored and disciplined”. They are people, real live thinking and acting people, who you have no control over. ‘Scares you, doesn’t it?

              You are a hypocrite, Tokarski. And that kinda makes me sick.

            • I deliberately adopted Helenainsider’s tone. That’s why I responded that way. And politicians can be controlled if 1) we remove private money, and 2) if you Democrats f****** pay attention between election cycles. It would also help if you valued deeds over words.

              Being called a hypocrite by Rod Kailey, aka Monty, is kinda funny.

              • Of course it’s someone else’s fault. Tokarski can never be wrong.

                I’ve no interest in controlling someone else, jackass. That isn’t my job or my life. Apparently, that’s all you have to do.

                And you’d best be careful, Mark. I might do the impossible and steal your IP address again and make you look stupid. I’m just that nefarious …

  • Rehberg is just biding time until he officially steps down and can legally join his son’s lobbying firm. That’s a noble effort for a ‘rancher’.

    • Tester too would be headed into lobbying. Good grief! We just got done with months of nonsense coming from the mouths of two hacks. Your hack is not better than their hack!

      Who said … “How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don’t think.”

      • My “hack” won, is better than yours, and you have no evidence whatsoever for your fantasy predictions. You keep trying to chide Dave Budge for never having to prove his ideas, especially in areas where you never have to prove yours. You, Tokarski, are the hack in play here.

        • I chide Budge because he takes refuge in notions that cannot be disproven. He always gets to be right. There’s quite a difference between that and this.

          On the other hand, look above to where NR said “blah blah blah”. I offered a serious litany of evidence to support my contention that the two parties pursue the same goals. Evidence, nothing more. A serious litany of evidence.

          And I am not a black/white thinker, as you are, and so rely not on “proof,” an annoying word, and use “evidence” instead.It’s a thought-inhibiting concept. Evidence leads one way or the other, and we seek a preponderance but allow for gray areas. Proof demands a clearly defined outcome. Life does not offer much of that.

          Kindly refrain from using the word “proof” ever gain.

          • If you post “litany” then you should genuflect. Your “belief” lacks substance.

            I’ll use the word “proof” any time I care to, and you won’t have any refutation against it. You are that lame.

          • Litany, lame ass, is used here in place of the word “list” because it has a nice ring to it. I did not list beliefs. There is objective reality, though it is hard to uncover, and each item on the list is backed by hard evidence.

            Your use of words reveals your thought processes, such as they are. Black/white thinking is a defect in reasoning ability, nothing more. Kind of like wanting to walk but being lame.

            • Oppositional thinking, what you wrongly call “black/white”, is a critical tool in skeptical analysis. I’ve explained that to you before with many more words but you just don’t seem to get it. Nor will you, because you hypocritically cling to ‘black/white’ thinking. You are right, and others are manipulated, duped, unaware, asleep, wrong.

              For the record, the use of colorful words that don’t mean what you think they mean doesn’t help your case. You “believe” that others will act as you see them acting. It is a religion to you, the starting point of all your circular arguments. So you should genuflect to your God of fallacy. That one is really all you have.

                • And you can’t counter anything I wrote, can you?

                  I fart in your general direction! Your father was a hamster and your mother smelt of elderberries!

                  You have nothing, Tokarski. Nothing, save worship of your fallacies. Genuflect, asshole. Your belief deserves it.

  • OK, I’ve been called a “troll” now, the general reflex when a thread goes on and on. It’s time to quit. I do suggest you read my blog post today, linked by ping back below. It is not wise to play politics unless you understand politics. Or as Nader says, if you don’t do politics, politicians will do you. Tester has indeed done you, done you good.

Subscribe Via E-mail

Follow me on Twitter

%d bloggers like this: