The news that $22billion from the Department of Homeland Security went unaccounted for is bad enough but what King says NOW just takes the cake.
Commitee Chairman Bennie Thompson says "DHS is a department in sore need of congressional oversight," as he re-organizes the committee.
Where was this oversight under King?
Nowhere apparantly.
" Homeland Security ranking member Peter King, R-N.Y., agreed that Homeland Security Department was a candidate for "extensive oversight" and said he and other Republicans on the panel looked "forward to working with [Thompson] and cooperating whenever we can."
Indeed.
King admits his own failure to do the job as chairman.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Constituent Bashes King on Drug Price Vote in Newsday Letter
Pick a side on AARP, King
"Flawed and irresponsible," said Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) when voting against a bill that would reduce drug costs for seniors and, most important, limit the huge profits of big drug companies ["AARP raps King's vote on drug bill," News, Jan. 16]. Yet, when he "strongly supported" the original Medicare Part D that outlawed the government's ability to negotiate drug prices, he said in a constituent letter: "H.R. 1 is a good bill. It is not perfect. But nothing in this world is perfect - and only a fool or a knave would consider allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good."
AARP is now a "radical" organization, according to Peter King, because it is in favor of lower drug prices. But when it lent its name to the original law, King called it a "leading advocacy group."
Which is it, congressman? Long Island seniors would like to know.
Barbara Santerle
Levittown
"Flawed and irresponsible," said Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) when voting against a bill that would reduce drug costs for seniors and, most important, limit the huge profits of big drug companies ["AARP raps King's vote on drug bill," News, Jan. 16]. Yet, when he "strongly supported" the original Medicare Part D that outlawed the government's ability to negotiate drug prices, he said in a constituent letter: "H.R. 1 is a good bill. It is not perfect. But nothing in this world is perfect - and only a fool or a knave would consider allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good."
AARP is now a "radical" organization, according to Peter King, because it is in favor of lower drug prices. But when it lent its name to the original law, King called it a "leading advocacy group."
Which is it, congressman? Long Island seniors would like to know.
Barbara Santerle
Levittown
Monday, January 22, 2007
Kings Friend Hillary is Running for President
King once said "I've seen her walk into a room full of firemen on Long Island who really had no use for her, and by the end they're asking her for pictures with their children," said Long Island GOP Rep. Pete King.
"Probably a lot of Republicans would want Hillary, but I think they'd be making a mistake," he said, pointing out that Democrats licked their chops over Ronald Reagan in 1980."
The Clintons have the best political team in the country - they're like the government in exile," King said."
Check out our shop, maybe buy a t-shirt or button for King....
"Probably a lot of Republicans would want Hillary, but I think they'd be making a mistake," he said, pointing out that Democrats licked their chops over Ronald Reagan in 1980."
The Clintons have the best political team in the country - they're like the government in exile," King said."
Check out our shop, maybe buy a t-shirt or button for King....
Peter King and Ann Coulter - Two Peas (or Nuts) in a Pod
King is fond of saying that Baghdad with its daily executions and bombings is just like downtown Manhattan. Ann Coulter is saying Baghdad is just like Los Angeles.
See the video at Crooks and Liars....
"Peter King said Baghdad was just like Manhattan and now Coulter screeches that it's just like LA. Those Sunnis and Shias sure reminded me of the Crips and Bloods too."
See the video at Crooks and Liars....
"Peter King said Baghdad was just like Manhattan and now Coulter screeches that it's just like LA. Those Sunnis and Shias sure reminded me of the Crips and Bloods too."
Monday, January 15, 2007
$22 Billion Missing from Homeland Security
via our new friends at Nasty Letters ....
"Firedoglake has a post about a recent KPMG audit of the Department of Homeland Security:
"Here’s my favorite. It’s a doozy folks. You may want to read it twice: FEMA was unable to fully support the accuracy and completeness of certain unpaid obligations, and accounts payable, and the related effects on net position, if any, prior to the completion of DHS’s 2006 PAR. These unpaid obligations, as reported in the accompanying DHS balance sheet as of September 30, 2006, were $22.3 Billion or 46% of DHS consolidated unexpended appropriations at September 30, 2006. [emphasis mine]"
So King was running the show on the House side while almost HALF of the DHS budget went unaccounted for?! But you know, whatever, his son lobbies for defense contractors, it's all good, perfectly on the level, now let's get back to running the country.."
"Firedoglake has a post about a recent KPMG audit of the Department of Homeland Security:
"Here’s my favorite. It’s a doozy folks. You may want to read it twice: FEMA was unable to fully support the accuracy and completeness of certain unpaid obligations, and accounts payable, and the related effects on net position, if any, prior to the completion of DHS’s 2006 PAR. These unpaid obligations, as reported in the accompanying DHS balance sheet as of September 30, 2006, were $22.3 Billion or 46% of DHS consolidated unexpended appropriations at September 30, 2006. [emphasis mine]"
So King was running the show on the House side while almost HALF of the DHS budget went unaccounted for?! But you know, whatever, his son lobbies for defense contractors, it's all good, perfectly on the level, now let's get back to running the country.."
Sunday, January 14, 2007
King's Emperor Has No Clothes
Peter King is a big fan of George W. Bush.
How does King feel about Bush being too much of a coward to watch the Saddam execution?
Bush is supposed to be some sort of courageous tough-guy but can't bring himself to watch the result of his invasion of Iraq.
Bush supports the death penalty (as does King) but doesn't want to see with his own eyes the sentence carried out.
On CBS's 60 Minutes...
BUSH: Not really. Not really. I was satisfied when we captured him. I'm just not . . .revenge isn't necessarily something that causes me to react. In other words, I'm not a revengeful person. I'm glad he received the justice that was due.
PELLEY: I'm curious. How did you see the video?
BUSH: Internet.
PELLEY: You called it up on the internet and watched it?
BUSH: Somebody showed me parts of it. Yeah. I didn't wanna watch the whole thing.
PELLEY: Well, you keep saying "parts of it." What do you mean you didn't wanna watch the whole thing?
BUSH: I wasn't sure what to anticipate beyond the yelling and stuff like that. And I didn't . .
PELLEY: You didn't wanna see him go through the trapdoor.
BUSH: Yeah. Yes. I didn't.
How does King feel about Bush being too much of a coward to watch the Saddam execution?
Bush is supposed to be some sort of courageous tough-guy but can't bring himself to watch the result of his invasion of Iraq.
Bush supports the death penalty (as does King) but doesn't want to see with his own eyes the sentence carried out.
On CBS's 60 Minutes...
BUSH: Not really. Not really. I was satisfied when we captured him. I'm just not . . .revenge isn't necessarily something that causes me to react. In other words, I'm not a revengeful person. I'm glad he received the justice that was due.
PELLEY: I'm curious. How did you see the video?
BUSH: Internet.
PELLEY: You called it up on the internet and watched it?
BUSH: Somebody showed me parts of it. Yeah. I didn't wanna watch the whole thing.
PELLEY: Well, you keep saying "parts of it." What do you mean you didn't wanna watch the whole thing?
BUSH: I wasn't sure what to anticipate beyond the yelling and stuff like that. And I didn't . .
PELLEY: You didn't wanna see him go through the trapdoor.
BUSH: Yeah. Yes. I didn't.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Day Four - King Votes Against Senior Citizens
King once again had an opportunity to stand up for his constituents but voted with his pharmacutical company contributors.
The bill 'H. R. 4: To amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate lower covered part D drug prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries.' pretty much explains itself in the title.
The point is to work out a price plan with pharmacutical companies to help people especially seniors afford thier medication. Or as the bill puts it "(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall negotiate with pharmaceutical manufacturers the prices (including discounts, rebates, and other price concessions) that may be charged to PDP sponsors and MA organizations for covered part D drugs for part D eligible individuals who are enrolled under a prescription drug plan or under an MA-PD plan."
Right now there is a huge hole in the Part D coverage that gives many beneficiaries the choice of vital medication or food. Not both.
Peter King voted "NO" on this bill.
Here is some background via CBS News on the current problems with Part D coverage that King wants to keep intact.
"For all patients, Medicare covers 75 percent of the first $2,250 worth of drugs. But after that, coverage drops to zero — and doesn't resume until the patient hits $5,100 in expenses. Then Medicare kicks in again, paying 95 percent of costs. But it's this gap — of almost $3,000 — that many sick and disabled seniors call unaffordable.
"For Paul Jutras, who takes 14 medicines every day, the Medicare drug benefit seemed to stop as soon as it began.
"Asticol was $253.30," he says. "They paid nothing. And I paid 253.30."
The problem is that he's fallen into a gap in coverage called the "doughnut hole" — in which seniors pay for all of their drugs themselves. On Jutras' low income, and with this many prescriptions, he's trying to decide which drug not to take.
"I've had congestive heart failure," he says, "so giving up one of those prescriptions can really be fatal for me."
Why doesn't King care about people like Paul Jutras?
The bill 'H. R. 4: To amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate lower covered part D drug prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries.' pretty much explains itself in the title.
The point is to work out a price plan with pharmacutical companies to help people especially seniors afford thier medication. Or as the bill puts it "(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall negotiate with pharmaceutical manufacturers the prices (including discounts, rebates, and other price concessions) that may be charged to PDP sponsors and MA organizations for covered part D drugs for part D eligible individuals who are enrolled under a prescription drug plan or under an MA-PD plan."
Right now there is a huge hole in the Part D coverage that gives many beneficiaries the choice of vital medication or food. Not both.
Peter King voted "NO" on this bill.
Here is some background via CBS News on the current problems with Part D coverage that King wants to keep intact.
"For all patients, Medicare covers 75 percent of the first $2,250 worth of drugs. But after that, coverage drops to zero — and doesn't resume until the patient hits $5,100 in expenses. Then Medicare kicks in again, paying 95 percent of costs. But it's this gap — of almost $3,000 — that many sick and disabled seniors call unaffordable.
"For Paul Jutras, who takes 14 medicines every day, the Medicare drug benefit seemed to stop as soon as it began.
"Asticol was $253.30," he says. "They paid nothing. And I paid 253.30."
The problem is that he's fallen into a gap in coverage called the "doughnut hole" — in which seniors pay for all of their drugs themselves. On Jutras' low income, and with this many prescriptions, he's trying to decide which drug not to take.
"I've had congestive heart failure," he says, "so giving up one of those prescriptions can really be fatal for me."
Why doesn't King care about people like Paul Jutras?
Peter King Says Dumb Things
When Bush announced he would be sending 20,000 more soldiers to Iraq, King had this to say "And the president is going to make it clear to the Iraqis that there will be consequences if they don't live up to their end of it,"
What exactly will those "consequences" be?
We'll pull the troops out?
Nope, Bush doesn't want to do that.
What exactly can Bush do if the Iraqi's don't help?
Talk sternly to them?
Take them off his christmas card list?
Overthrow the current gov't to install leaders we can control? (That sounds like our policy in South Vietnam)
Seriously, what are the "consequences?"
Can King tell us?
Probably not since it is just empty rhetoric.
What exactly will those "consequences" be?
We'll pull the troops out?
Nope, Bush doesn't want to do that.
What exactly can Bush do if the Iraqi's don't help?
Talk sternly to them?
Take them off his christmas card list?
Overthrow the current gov't to install leaders we can control? (That sounds like our policy in South Vietnam)
Seriously, what are the "consequences?"
Can King tell us?
Probably not since it is just empty rhetoric.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Day Three - King Votes Against Stem Cell Research
When King is given an opportunity to vote to help work towards cures for many, he votes NO.
The vote was 253-174.
30 odd votes short of being Veto-proof.
Here is the text of the bill...
H. R. 3
AN ACT
To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.
Part H of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 498C the following:
`SEC. 498D. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.
`(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any regulation or guidance), the Secretary shall conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells in accordance with this section (regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo).
`(b) Ethical Requirements- Human embryonic stem cells shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or supported by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the following:
`(1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment.
`(2) Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.
`(3) The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the embryos with written informed consent and without receiving any financial or other inducements to make the donation.
`(c) Guidelines- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation with the Director of NIH, shall issue final guidelines to carry out this section.
`(d) Reporting Requirements- The Secretary shall annually prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of the Congress a report describing the activities carried out under this section during the preceding fiscal year, and including a description of whether and to what extent research under subsection (a) has been conducted in accordance with this section.'.
The vote was 253-174.
30 odd votes short of being Veto-proof.
Here is the text of the bill...
H. R. 3
AN ACT
To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.
Part H of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 498C the following:
`SEC. 498D. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.
`(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any regulation or guidance), the Secretary shall conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells in accordance with this section (regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo).
`(b) Ethical Requirements- Human embryonic stem cells shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or supported by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the following:
`(1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment.
`(2) Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.
`(3) The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the embryos with written informed consent and without receiving any financial or other inducements to make the donation.
`(c) Guidelines- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation with the Director of NIH, shall issue final guidelines to carry out this section.
`(d) Reporting Requirements- The Secretary shall annually prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of the Congress a report describing the activities carried out under this section during the preceding fiscal year, and including a description of whether and to what extent research under subsection (a) has been conducted in accordance with this section.'.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Day Two Part 1
Today the House votes on increasing the minimum wage.
King needs Union support so I expect him to vote against the majority of the republicans on this issue.
King needs Union support so I expect him to vote against the majority of the republicans on this issue.
Day One of the 110th Congress
Yesterday and the next 99 days will be remarkable in the fact that important legislation stalled by the republicans will get a vote and will pass.
The first major piece of legislation was the "Implementing the 9/11Commission Recommendations Act." For three years the republicans had no problem funding Bush's misadventures in Iraq but could not bring about implementing the recommendations from the 9/11 Commission Report.
King as chairman along with his fellow republicans defeated any Democratic attempt to increase funding and expand homeland security and even lied about it.
What did King have to say about Democrats' plans for the first 100 days?
In Newsday he says "To make it part of a 100-hour show shamefully trivializes an issue of life or death,"
"I don't want to give the American people a false sense of security that in one afternoon of debate we're going to satisfy all the homeland security issues facing America... Or to let them believe that nothing's been done until now. ... Homeland security is far too important an issue to play politics with."
In the Christian Science Monitor he says "In only their first few days in the majority, House Democratic leadership has already fallen short on the key security promise they made to the American people... Republicans have already enacted an overwhelming majority of the recommendations, and the opening of the 110th Congress was a terrific opportunity to finish the job. Unfortunately, it is amounting to nothing more than a missed opportunity."
So King voted against the "Implementing the 9/11Commission Recommendations Act," right?
Actually he voted for it. He was 1 of 68 republicans who voted yes.
It would seem keeping up appearances as a staunch Homeland Security supporter trumps his own feelings on the bill.
And what did King say after voting 'Yes'?
"...the measure "gives false hope to the American people" because technology for scanning all cargo containers is not yet available."
So why did he vote for it?
King tells Newsday he voted for it "because I want to send a bipartisan message."
Not to protect the country then?
9/11 Commission member Tim Roehmer points out that during Kings tenure as Chairman, none of the recommendations passed "The 108th Congress passed half of the 9/11 commission reforms. The 109th Congress did nothing. The 110th Congress seeks to finish the job and pass all the remaining reforms,"
Rep. Jim Moran adds "The fact is that the bipartisan 9/11 commission gave the last Congress F's and D's in implementing its recommendations,"
King and the republican congress failed to fulfill its obligation to protect this country and the Democrats intend to see that we are protected.
The first major piece of legislation was the "Implementing the 9/11Commission Recommendations Act." For three years the republicans had no problem funding Bush's misadventures in Iraq but could not bring about implementing the recommendations from the 9/11 Commission Report.
King as chairman along with his fellow republicans defeated any Democratic attempt to increase funding and expand homeland security and even lied about it.
What did King have to say about Democrats' plans for the first 100 days?
In Newsday he says "To make it part of a 100-hour show shamefully trivializes an issue of life or death,"
"I don't want to give the American people a false sense of security that in one afternoon of debate we're going to satisfy all the homeland security issues facing America... Or to let them believe that nothing's been done until now. ... Homeland security is far too important an issue to play politics with."
In the Christian Science Monitor he says "In only their first few days in the majority, House Democratic leadership has already fallen short on the key security promise they made to the American people... Republicans have already enacted an overwhelming majority of the recommendations, and the opening of the 110th Congress was a terrific opportunity to finish the job. Unfortunately, it is amounting to nothing more than a missed opportunity."
So King voted against the "Implementing the 9/11Commission Recommendations Act," right?
Actually he voted for it. He was 1 of 68 republicans who voted yes.
It would seem keeping up appearances as a staunch Homeland Security supporter trumps his own feelings on the bill.
And what did King say after voting 'Yes'?
"...the measure "gives false hope to the American people" because technology for scanning all cargo containers is not yet available."
So why did he vote for it?
King tells Newsday he voted for it "because I want to send a bipartisan message."
Not to protect the country then?
9/11 Commission member Tim Roehmer points out that during Kings tenure as Chairman, none of the recommendations passed "The 108th Congress passed half of the 9/11 commission reforms. The 109th Congress did nothing. The 110th Congress seeks to finish the job and pass all the remaining reforms,"
Rep. Jim Moran adds "The fact is that the bipartisan 9/11 commission gave the last Congress F's and D's in implementing its recommendations,"
King and the republican congress failed to fulfill its obligation to protect this country and the Democrats intend to see that we are protected.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Letter to Newsday re: Peter "Archie Bunker" King
Respecting cultures a noble act
I have never met Rabbi Jerome Davidson of Temple Beth El in Great Neck nor Faroque Khan of the Islamic Center of Long Island, but I sure would like to ["Islamic group awards rabbi for bridging faiths," News, Dec. 4].
There is much to be learned from people who promote brotherhood, respect and understanding for the culture and customs of others.
I have never met Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) and have no desire to do so. King spews forth a fount of sound and fury, fear and hate, all totally lacking in fact or credence.
In his case, the slander is usually delivered by a hired aide. Should a backlash of indignation occur, the hired aide might be fired and a curtain of deniability would descend, with King behind it. I ask the "Joseph McCarthy of Seaford": Have you no shame?
Steve Engel
Great Neck
I have never met Rabbi Jerome Davidson of Temple Beth El in Great Neck nor Faroque Khan of the Islamic Center of Long Island, but I sure would like to ["Islamic group awards rabbi for bridging faiths," News, Dec. 4].
There is much to be learned from people who promote brotherhood, respect and understanding for the culture and customs of others.
I have never met Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) and have no desire to do so. King spews forth a fount of sound and fury, fear and hate, all totally lacking in fact or credence.
In his case, the slander is usually delivered by a hired aide. Should a backlash of indignation occur, the hired aide might be fired and a curtain of deniability would descend, with King behind it. I ask the "Joseph McCarthy of Seaford": Have you no shame?
Steve Engel
Great Neck
Friday, January 05, 2007
King Still a Hypocrite
King said to the Associated Press "Homeland security is far too important an issue to play politics with"
Really?
Then why did King as chairman of the Homeland Security Commitee play politics?
This is an official release as Chairman of the commitee..
"Let's not forget, a number of Democrats have consistently voted against providing proper funding for the War on Terror and provisions important to our homeland security, such as the REAL ID Act. Many even voted against the creation of a Department of Homeland Security in the first place," he concluded. "they think a little partisan grandstanding is going to make up for being soft on this issue, they are mistaken. I hope that in the future they can choose to put politics aside and work with us in a bipartisan manner to make certain our homeland remains secure."
What a hypocrite.
Really?
Then why did King as chairman of the Homeland Security Commitee play politics?
This is an official release as Chairman of the commitee..
"Let's not forget, a number of Democrats have consistently voted against providing proper funding for the War on Terror and provisions important to our homeland security, such as the REAL ID Act. Many even voted against the creation of a Department of Homeland Security in the first place," he concluded. "they think a little partisan grandstanding is going to make up for being soft on this issue, they are mistaken. I hope that in the future they can choose to put politics aside and work with us in a bipartisan manner to make certain our homeland remains secure."
What a hypocrite.
A New Political Year to Speak Your Mind In
Visit our shop to pick up some t-shirts and bumper stickers.
Welcome to the Minority, Peter
Peter King once again joins the minority in congress and as expected he's just a big baby.
The new Democratic majority under Speaker Pelosi has an ambitious agenda to take care of the peoples business.
What does King have to say about the votes that will be coming up next week to implement the 9/11 commission recommendations?
He tells Newsday "To legislate all of this in one afternoon or one evening, when no one in the House will know the nuances, trivializes the importance of the issues,'
The "nuances" were brought up in commitee by Democrats but were shot down by King when he was chairman.
King tells AP "Homeland security is far too important an issue to play politics with, and any new homeland security measure should be given the review and oversight it deserves,"
We'll get to the whole "playing politics with" in another post because King is a major hypocrite on that.
While chairman, King dithered when it came to really securing our ports and voted against proposals to increase funding for ports.
King oddly opposed increased airport security.
Oddly because he is supposed to be tough.
But maybe not so oddly since airlines will have to increase their own security, costing them money. And it just so happens Kings daughter Erin King Sweeney is manager of legal and regulatory affairs for Swissair.
The new Democratic majority under Speaker Pelosi has an ambitious agenda to take care of the peoples business.
What does King have to say about the votes that will be coming up next week to implement the 9/11 commission recommendations?
He tells Newsday "To legislate all of this in one afternoon or one evening, when no one in the House will know the nuances, trivializes the importance of the issues,'
The "nuances" were brought up in commitee by Democrats but were shot down by King when he was chairman.
King tells AP "Homeland security is far too important an issue to play politics with, and any new homeland security measure should be given the review and oversight it deserves,"
We'll get to the whole "playing politics with" in another post because King is a major hypocrite on that.
While chairman, King dithered when it came to really securing our ports and voted against proposals to increase funding for ports.
King oddly opposed increased airport security.
Oddly because he is supposed to be tough.
But maybe not so oddly since airlines will have to increase their own security, costing them money. And it just so happens Kings daughter Erin King Sweeney is manager of legal and regulatory affairs for Swissair.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
