Citizen's Blog

Half my adult life was spent pursuing hedonistic pleasures irrespective of the impact to other people’s lives. Along the way I was married and had two children. Then a divorce and other challenges presented themselves. Eventually, I remarried and had three more children. Upon reflection, it appears as though my adult life is two distinctly different chapters of the same book.

Elections are not unlike our lives as they take on personalities of their own; they exude a certain distinctive characteristic. Every two or four years, voters instinctively find themselves at their voting places waiting patiently to cast their vote. Perhaps the excitement of a new candidate or a new message permeates their thoughts. Perhaps a glimmer of hope that some newly elected official can make some difference in their lives. Perhaps, it’s all irrelevant as you vote repeatedly for the same type of person, or down the Party line.

How many times have you voted for a Democrat or a Republican? Have you considered the reasons? Perhaps your parents were affiliated with a particular party. Perhaps your friends or a group of people you are associated with vote for a particular party. Consider, every election cycle also reflects another two or four years of your life that has passed. Do you pause and reflect upon the previous election and think about why you voted for a particular candidate or for all the candidates of a particular Party? Did the people you voted for meet or exceed your expectations, if you even had any expectations?

Political machinations constantly grate on us in a never-ending churn. Life has its own machinations as well, and we must constantly pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and face life’s challenges; or we can concede that life may never be more than mediocre and accept the status quo. The same applies to politics and voting.

The status quo reappears each election cycle by virtue of our voting patterns. I have paused and reflected about life and elections, and in the 2010 elections I want a different type of person elected to office. It’s time “we the people” start a new chapter in how we elect candidates to office. We must cast off stereotypes and dismiss the status quo. We can no longer tolerate the same people, filling the same seat in some chamber on a faraway hill in Annapolis or Washington. We must no longer mindlessly re-elect the same person to the same office without holding them accountable.

It is time to pause and reflect; to look inward to our beliefs and convictions rather than outward to a politician or political party to define those inner-most personal things for us. I have paused and reflected for some time now.

Jim Rutledge is a United States senatorial candidate in Maryland. Jim has never been elected to political office nor has he ever been a candidate. Jim’s beliefs and convictions are nearly identical to mine. Jim believes in our country’s founding principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Jim believes in the original Constitution; that it protects the individual rights and liberties of all citizens, and it defines the legitimate role of government. Jim believes our founding documents and principles established the framework for the greatest country mankind has ever witnessed. For it unleashed American exceptionalism! Individuals, family, friends, faith, a limited federal government, and free-market capitalism is the DNA of America. Jim’s candidacy embodies these beliefs and convictions.

As we approach the time of year when we must cast our votes for a new slate of people to represent us, I ask each of you to pause and reflect before you cast your vote. As I have had two distinctly different chapters in my life, we can have two distinctly different chapters of political representatives. That is why I am voting for Jim Rutledge as Maryland’s next United States Senator. I certainly hope you do too.

There are so many reasons why my husband and I say “Boy, am I glad we Homeschool”.

Most of those reasons are positive.
We love being able to help each of the boys learn to the best of their ability in their own way.
We love being able to take off and go on field trips or vacations when we are studying something interesting.
We love being able to choose challenging curriculum, that is tailored to each particular learning style.
We love being able to work one on one and watch the way these fabulous minds spark and catch fire.
There are so many positive reasons to do what we do, that we frequently forget about the other reasons….the negative ones

In our homeschool there are no bullies, and no one is allowed to belittle or demean another person. That doesn’t mean that it never happens, but it does mean that we do not tolerate it.

In our homeschool there are no school shootings, no knife attacks, no beatings, and no one is allowed to be disrespectful of the teacher. It really helps that we love each other so much, but I have noticed that the boys seem to be carrying these lessons out into the world.

In our homeschool there is absolutely no fear for personal safety. Each and every one of my boys knows that we love and respect every part of each of them; mind, body and soul and that they should love and respect the minds, bodies and souls of others. We are very careful about where they go and who they are with, and we have an open line of communication that we hope they will always feel free to use.

In our homeschool there is no condescension and no mental abuse.

I am not saying that our school is perfect, far from it. We struggle. We are always concerned about whether we are doing the very best. I try to make sure that they all know that I am mom and not just teacher. I think and pray about our direction and I am constantly trying to evaluate my own performance.
The reason I am so concerned is because I love my kids so much and I want more than anything to see them become capable and happy adults. I want them to be able to do anything in this world that they decide they want to do. I know them and I love them more than anyone else does, well, with the exception of God and Tim!

We are so blest to have the right to choose the educational direction that we believe is best for our family.
There are people that don’t agree that we should have this right. For many reasons these people feel that parents are not competent to teach, not trained in the formal processes of education.

Recently it came to my attention that the High School in the town that we call home, our small city by the Bay, has been the center of a very hot controversy in the area of parental rights.

Parental rights are something that I hold very dear. The right to raise our children the way we believe best has always been one of the greatest rights and responsibilities that we have in our American Culture.
There are those, in our own country and in international circles, that believe that parents are not the best people to decide what their children should learn, believe, or be exposed to and when. There are actually people out there who believe that in parenting, the parents must prove their fitness and that most parents are less than capable of knowing what is best for their children.

In the case of our High School it has become apparent that when children are at school, during school hours, the administrators and staff believe that they have authority over all that the young people see, hear and experience, and that, for those hours, parents are not the primary caregivers of their children.

The issue involves a now-controversial program that the school has been using to reach young people that may be facing serious mental health issues, with the hope that they would be encouraged to seek help. Help that is available through the school.
The name of the program was Drama Therapy, and it is actually a proven method of therapy within a certain framework of treatment or diagnosis. “Drama Therapy” itself isn’t the problem.

I have gone to a screening and viewed the content, and while it was not in any way wholesome, it would probably fit the Drama Therapy parameters, if there were actual therapists present and participating. It seemed to me that it was students treating students..but that is another story…
If you want to read more about it, including excerpts from the play, you may read about it here.

The problem arose when some of the parents of the young people that attended the mandatory assembly where this program was performed, heard that it had been done without any parental or even administrative involvement. No parents were informed that it would be taking place, there was no chance for anyone to review the scripts or opt their kids out of the program.

This was a HUGE oversight on the part of the administration. Looking back they can see the errors and the potential for problems in the way that it was handled, but there is no excuse for the way that the families that came forward to express and uphold their rights as parents were vilified and disregarded.

The program was put on by a group of very well-meaning people, who had the kid’s best interests at heart. We have the right to protect our children from “well-meaning” people.

The program was put on to help the kids find direction and inspire an environment of openness.
We have the right to direct our children and to protect them from an environment that we feel may damage them.

The program may have been intended to put into play the values that the organizers felt the children need to be focusing on. We have the right to define the values and help to inform the consciences of those children in our care. There was no direction, no lessons taught by anyone in authority.

People in this country have been sold a bill of goods by the nanny state.

They believe that only “professionals” are capable of knowing what is best for their families, for their health, for their futures.

Who are these professionals? Do they have it all together? Do they know whereof they speak?

We have the right to know what is going on in our kids classrooms, and we have the right to say that we do not approve if we don’t.

We have the right to say that there is an objective moral absolute and that we expect our educators, leaders, politicians and government to live up to it.

We have the right to be appalled at the lack of rigor in our school systems, the dropout rate, the illiteracy, the tenure system that keeps incompetent teachers and professors in their jobs.

We have the right to expect to be listened to when it comes to the health and well being of our kids!

Not everyone can homeschool. Most don’t want to. And they shouldn’t have to!!

But I am so glad that I can…
I am so grateful that we have the laws that we do in this country. Many people have worked very, very hard to make sure that we continue to have this right. There are those that would strip it away.

We need to be aware of the attempts to remove parents as the primary authorities in their kids lives.
We need to elect people that will respect and uphold those rights.

Do some research. If you can’t get a straight answer from a candidate on this issue, then look elsewhere.
If you are having this discussion with Jim Rutledge, then you won’t need to.
Jim says :

“School Choice – Parents have a fundamental right to educate their children. This right is paramount and is not to be subordinated to the federal government.

School choice should be the parent’s right.

Parent’s Bill of Rights – The parent shall have the right to opt out of the public school system, and upon opting out, shall have the right to receive a scholarship from the public school board or state government that shall equal the “per pupil” cost that the parent may direct will be paid to the private or parochial school of their choice.

The parent shall have the right to opt out of the public school system by electing to home school their child rather than send them to a private or parochial school.

Read more by visiting www.friedmanfoundation.org

Academic Freedom – Forcing our students to conform to the politically correct views of academia is choking off the robust freedom of speech and unfettered debate that is the birthright of a free people. Liberty is being strangled by the doctrine of political correctness.

America’s public colleges and universities are rife with incidents of teachers punishing students who dare to challenge the established doctrines of the liberal educators. Likewise, highly qualified teachers are denied promotion and punished for challenging the assumptions that the leftist hold dearly.

Without freedom of debate and speech in the halls of academia, the dangerous and destructive idealogy of socialism will hold sway over the minds of our children. The taxpayers should not be compelled to fund the mind-control factories.”

In Maryland we have a choice….Jim Rutledge.

Find out if candidates will oppose the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which will put parents directly under the thumb of the UN.

Go to ParentalRights.org and read about what needs to be done and who is working on it.

There is only so much time, your kids only have one childhood…

Civilized society is premised upon the individual right of citizens to choose their representatives at all levels of government. The contract between the people and their elected representatives is; those elected to office will represent the needs of their constituents, secure their unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, and constrain themselves by working within the legitimate framework of the federal or state Constitution. It begs the question do free elections equate to freedom?

Conceptually, the framework established around free elections and a representative government creates a political system where the governed freely elect their representatives; where those elected have a fiduciary and legal responsibility to act within a specific set of parameters and constraints. The social contract established by free elections requires both parties to the contract to fulfill their obligations. Therefore, elected representatives are legally and morally bound by the social contract instituted as free people. That social contract is known as the Constitution.

Elections do not provide representatives authority to arbitrarily determine the legitimate role of government; therefore representatives cannot modify the social contract established between themselves and the citizens. The Constitution established the legitimate role of government, therefore to faithfully execute the social contract representatives are bound to honor it. Just as the Supreme Court may rule on the constitutionality of an issue, the Supreme Court cannot amend or change the original intent and meaning of the Constitution. Only an amendment ratified by 3/4ths of the states can modify the Constitution.

Precedence, by legislative fiat or judicial ruling, cannot alter the Constitution nor legally bound the citizen to adhere to it if the object acted upon is not within the parameters and constraints of the social contract; in other words not within the legitimate role of government. However, what recourse does the citizen have when elected representatives act outside the parameters and constraints established by the social contract. Is the social contract null and void when elected officials collectively enact legislation violating the social contract with those that elected them? Indeed, if citizens expect their representatives to be bound by the enumerated powers ceded by the states to the federal government, have the representatives violated the basic premise of the social contract?

Contrast the social contract with a contract between a citizen and a lending institution. The citizen wants to borrow money to purchase a house. The terms and conditions of the contract between the lender and the citizen is written, read by all parties, and finally agreed to by all parties. There are terms and conditions that the lender and the citizen must fulfill. The contract establishes the amount of money to borrow, the structure of the loan, the terms for repayment, and the interest rate the citizen will pay to the lender. Years after the contract is signed, the funds are borrowed and the house is purchased, the lender arbitrarily decides to change the interest rate from 5.5% to 8%. Clearly, this violates the original terms of the contract. In its most basic form this is lawlessness on the lenders behalf. The borrower’s recourse is to not pay the additional interest, seek legal remedies, or wait for the lender to enforce the interest rate change by legal remedy.

Likewise, when elected representatives violate the terms of the social contract between themselves and the citizens, what recourse does the citizen have at that point? Generally, representatives cannot be recalled. Representatives can be voted out of office in the next election cycle, however, in between now and then legislative fiat may result in loss of private property, individual rights, or liberties guaranteed to be protected under the Constitution. In its most basic form it too is lawlessness. And, lawlessness begets lawlessness. Representatives acting outside constraints of the Constitution, where power was not granted by the states creates a dominion of one body over another body. In this case Congress is the body creating dominion over the body of citizens. Those representing the citizens are now masters over their electors.

States ratified the Constitution, not the people. The terms and conditions of ratification were those in place when the Constitution was originally written and ratified. The understanding of the states as to the terms and conditions of their contractual obligation as well as those of the federal government were firm and resolute as of 1789. The Constitution established the terms and conditions of the social contract accordingly, and those terms and conditions could not be modified; by legislative fiat, legal precedence, or any other means except for an amendment. The Constitution did not grant powers to the federal government to be the final or exclusive arbitrator. If these powers were granted to the federal government, then the government has the discretion to interpret the Constitution however they seem fit and, furthermore, they remove the constraints placed upon them by the Constitution rendering the federal government essentially one with unlimited powers creating the fertile ground for abuse, despotism, and tyranny.

I contend we do not have freedom if free elections result in representatives acting without authority granted by the States to the federal government as originally intended in the Constitution. Our freedoms, rights, liberty, and property are restricted or confiscated by acts of Congress. Our judicial system does not enforce the Constitution according to its original intent and meaning, nor does the judicial system retain the power to negate state laws as that power was never ceded by the states in the Constitution. States do not defend their powers and rights as established by the tenth amendment.

Our election process has eroded into a process that places representatives in a position of dominion over the citizens. Representatives ignore the people, bribe other representatives with the peoples’ money, and redistribute property as they deem appropriate. Congress and the judiciary are entities created by the social contract, constraints placed upon those serving in either branch, and does not authorize representatives or judges to define or modify those constraints. Congress acting beyond their legitimate role is an illegitimate government. Congress acting without constraint creates an atmosphere rife with immoral behavior, essentially allowing representatives to pursue their ambition and fulfill their avarice licentiously.

Two remedies exist to restrain a Congress acting illegitimately. First, an amendment can be passed and ratified to further restrict the Congress, however that may be difficult or time consuming to implement. Secondly, the states can declare the law null and void. States created and ratified the Constitution. The states are sovereign and can declare federal acts null and void if they encroach upon state powers. The tenth amendment clearly states that those powers granted to the federal government are limited according to Article I Section 8, and those powers prohibited to the states are those according to Article I, Section 10, and all other powers are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

We are free to cast votes in elections, however citizens are not truly free as those elected to Congress violate their Constitutional oath whenever the Congress acts outside the constraints of the enumerated powers; thus they erode our liberties, violate our individual rights, and/or confiscate our property. Perhaps the entire social contract is null and void under these conditions.

Recently United States citizens lost a Freedom specifically spelled out in the US Constitution. The V Amendment states in part “ …nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Recently the US Supreme Court, with a 5-4 decision, sided with the city of New London, Connecticut to seize private property in order to sell it to a drug company who promised to build a new plant and, in turn, increase jobs and tax revenue. After the decision, due to the down turn in the economy, the drug company backed out of the deal. Now the land sits vacant, the homes and neighborhood destroyed, and the promise of jobs and tax revenue are gone. The same thing is happening again in New York City.

In both cases, the land was not for public use. The land was seized by the government only to be resold to another person for their private use. Unfortunately the government is siding with the drug company for the promise of increased tax revenue instead of upholding the Constitution.

If the government did not interfere, capitalism and Freedom would have prevailed. The owners of the land would have made a choice to sell or not. The drug company would have found a different location to expand their business. The Constitution would not have been trampled on.

We must remain vigilant against the overreaching hand of the government. We must work together to ensure our Freedoms remain and capitalism prevails. As Jim Rutledge says, “Yes, you can own your own property. Yes, you can tell the government to stay out of your house.”

This Thursday at noon, Jim Rutledge, U.S. Senate candidate for Maryland will join other Americans on our U.S. Capitol steps to reject a government takeover of health care. Led by Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Republican Members of Congress will hold a press conference on the West Front Steps of the U.S. Capitol (House Side).

This is a critical time in our history as the Democrat-controlled Congress is on the verge of passing legislation that threatens individual liberty and freedom. Jim firmly opposes the Obama-Pelosi health care plan and believes that any health care reform must be rooted in market-driven solutions. Specifically, as U.S. Senator, Jim Rutledge would support:

1. Increasing private (not public) competition among insurers, including expansion of risk pools across state lines.
2. Portability of policies so individuals are not wed to employer issued policies that impair job mobility.
3. More transparency in cost, and Health Savings Account type of solutions.
4. Tort reform and regulatory reform to reduce the cost of defensive medicine and the cost of insurance for the practitioners. Having been on both sides of med-mal litigation, and having represented a multi-national health care company, Jim will add valuable perspective to the complexities and costs of our civil litigation system. Jim supports tort reform for product liability as well, since that must be addressed to encourage American innovation and manufacturing.

Details for Thursday:

What: Health Care “House Call” on Washington

Who: Republican Members of Congress
Americans concerned about our health care future
Other Guests – TBA

When: Thursday, November 5, 2009 from 12:00 – 1:00

Where: West Front Steps of the U.S. Capitol (House side)

Yes, the new Republican party is not the party of “No”. However, before I leave that word, I give it its due respect.
No is a vital part of parenting, teaching, negotiating, dieting and raising puppies.
And I also say No! to this universal mantra: “Yes, we can.”

Now America, hear our Yes!
Now Maryland, hear our Yes!

Yes, you can.
Yes, you can Live Free.

Yes, you can start your own business.
Yes, you can fail in business.
Yes, you can pursue your dream to be your own boss.
Yes, you can learn from your mistakes.

Yes, you can own your own property.
Yes, you can tell the government to stay out of your house.
Yes, you can enjoy the fruits of your labor.
Yes, you can be rewarded for your brilliant and creative mind.

Yes, you can rise above the circumstances into which you were born.
Yes, you can be a parent to your child.
Yes, you can worship your God, read your Bible, and share it with friends and strangers.
Yes, you can love your neighbor as you love yourself.

Yes, you can bear arms.
Yes, you can defend the weak and vulnerable.
Yes, you can defend yourself.

Yes, you can declare that a civilized people must value human life above all other forms of plant and animal life on earth.
Yes, you can speak out in dissent.
Yes, you can challenge authority.

Yes, you can dream a dream.
Yes, you can cherish and defend the Constitution.
Yes, you can pursue your dream without permission from your parents, your village, or your government.

Yes, you can do all these things and so very much more, once you realize that the “we” in the mantra “Yes, we can”, aims to swallow up the you in you, until you are nothing more than what “they” say you will be.

Stand with me and Live Free!

Jim Rutledge, a leader of the new Republican party
Candidate for the US Senate in Maryland in 2010

Written, September 21, 2009

As a small business owner who is intensely interested in the individual freedoms guaranteed and protected by the Constitution of the United States, I can say unequivocally that my employees and I are much WORSE OFF with government interference in our business than we would be without it.

Let’s start out with one simple example that is near and dear to everyone’s heart…MINIMUM WAGE.

This insidious concept that purportedly meant to help the poorest citizens among us, actually hurts that demographic the most.

How is that possible?

If the government did not set an artificial floor for wages, many more people would be able to enter the work force that might be willing to work for less money. Not everyone in this country has the same monetary needs. These potential employees are a diverse population; young people in school looking for part time, after school, evening or weekend work; new LEGAL immigrants to this country looking for a trade; people living with others and having low expenses; this list goes on and on. Some of these folks would be willing, even happy, to earn less than minimum wage. There is an infinite myriad of possible reasons underlying their decision to work. Some of these incentives are; earned income, the potential to rise within a company, the possibility of benefits, an opportunity to learn a skill that can be parlayed into a better paying job in the future, a bridge between jobs or careers, their rationale behind their choice to work is endless.

The government will NOT ALLOW this to occur.

It makes no sense, though. If two equally free “traders” are willing to enter into a trade, with no force on either side, why should the government interfere? If someone is willing to work for less than minimum wage, why should they not be able to?

If employers, such as me, were free to pay the wage that a low skilled worker was willing to accept, I would have additional funds for the following:

Employee training and education
Research and development
Marketing
Product improvement
Workplace improvement
Capital improvements
New equipment purchases

All of these “investments” would allow my business to grow, thrive and encourage the expansion of my workforce, ie. hiring additional people! This would occur on a perfectly voluntary basis, with no one paying more than necessary or earning less than they are willing to earn. In this example, the end result would be MORE people being employed.

The minimum wage stifles growth and employment in this country, and is just one small way the government hurts both employers and employees in this country.

The instances of government interference in the workplace are almost limitless, but I’ll try to bring a few more highlights (or low lights) in coming entries.

Jim Rutledge (www.rutledgeforussenate.com) knows how bad government interference in the workplace is first hand. Check out his website for more information.

September 11, 2001 7:10 AM
At that moment, at 7:10 AM on September 11, 2001, inside the World Trade Towers in New York City, analysts bounced between the details of overnight trading in Europe and Asia and laughter over last night’s favorite sitcom. In Washington, the defenders of freedom were already at work in the Pentagon, sharing the details of a child’s life, enjoying the pride of a mother telling how her son had kicked the game-winner in the last seconds of his soccer game the day before.

From the rich and powerful to the ordinary American, from the cancer survivor praying the Rosary to the evangelical leading a small bible study with her co-workers, Americans were living and dreaming and hoping and trusting. All that was good and decent, all that was sweet and precious, that thing we call life, would soon be snuffed out or altered forever, in the passing of a few hours of horror.

September 12, 2001
Americans vowed to hunt down, kill or capture those bloodthirsty enemies of freedom who plotted, aided or abetted the murder of thousands in the cowardly attack on America. The mission – destroy the enemy.

September 11, 2009
Eight years later – Afghanistan. Has the mission changed?

“The Afghan people are in the center of our mission. In reality they are our mission. We must protect them from violence whatever its nature,” U.S. General Stanley McChrystal.

“The most important element of the mission of the new NATO/coalition forces commander in Afghanistan is to protect the civilian population during the anti-terrorism military operations,” Karzai was quoted as telling the general. [Id.]

Really? Is that what we train our soldiers and marines to do? Protect the citizens of Afghanistan from violence whatever its nature. Had President Lincoln adopted the same policy, the Confederacy would have never been defeated. Had President Roosevelt adopted the same policy, Nazi Germany would have never been brought to its knees. Perhaps this whole venture points to an obvious fact – war cannot be waged to victory when Congress and the American people have not declared war.

September 12, 2009
Freedom loving patriots march on Washington, DC. Do the people want a government strong enough to protect them from violence whatever the nature? Will America defend her Constitution? Will Americans sell their birthright for a bowl of state soup? You decide.

1. Alterner.org, Agence France Presse

The Freedom Blog celebrates Jim Rutledge’s Pledge to the constituents of Maryland! Thank you Jim Rutledge!

“In the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, candidates and incumbents solemnly bind themselves to oppose any and all tax increases. While ATR has the role of promoting and monitoring the Pledge, the Taxpayer Protection Pledge is actually made to a candidate’s constituents, who are entitled to know where candidates stand before sending them to the capitol. Since the Pledge is a prerequisite for many voters, it is considered binding as long as an individual holds the office for which he or she signed the Pledge.” Americans for Tax Reform

I am a small business owner. I own 100% of my business, yet I am never allowed to make decisions based solely on my own judgment. I come to work by myself on the weekends, yet I am never alone. I consider myself to be a competent owner, yet I must rely on another’s opinions to run my business. I am honest, yet not trusted. I know more about my business than others, yet I must consult with them and their agents before acting to forward my business.

Does this sound like a riddle? A nightmare? Yes, it is both…I am, of course, referring to THE GOVERNMENT, that many-headed hydra; local, state, federal, regulatory, that rears its ugly heads in my business EVERY SECOND OF EVERY DAY OF EVERY YEAR, YEAR AFTER YEAR.

As a business owner, I am constantly reminded that there is a higher authority to answer to (and I am not referring to a spiritual being either). The hours that I operate my business are subject to local government ordinances. What and how I pay my employees, the benefits and perks I offer them, their raises, their promotions or discipline, their health insurance, pension plan, working conditions, ALL DICTATED TO ME IN SOME DEGREE BY THE GOVERNMENT.

What might happen if the government was not sitting on my shoulder all day long, ordering what to do and not to do? What if I offered poor working conditions or low pay to my employees? Why, the good ones would work elsewhere (at least they can right now, but perhaps in the future, they might not have that ability based on some of the socialist leanings of this administration) and I would be left with a work force that was ill-equipped to do a good job, I would lose my clients and go out of business. Period. The free market incentives are there for me to make sure I offer great working conditions, good pay, good benefits, and treat my good employees well WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

Every time the government, any head of the hydra, issues another edict, directive, or regulation relating to small business, I am comfortable saying that my employees and I suffer. How? Only the Shadow and I know right now…YOU will have to come back next week to find out.

If, on the other hand you prefer SUNLIGHT (the greatest disinfectant in the world) to SHADOW, discover a different type of politician at www.rutledgeforussenate.com