• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Checkoff, doctors, beef, & whatever!

Help Support Ranchers.net:

fedup2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
794
Reaction score
0
Whenever I start to read a thread on this forum, one way or another it always turns into a pissing contest between r-calf and ncba. It doesn’t matter what the topic is. I would like to see a discussion without all this childish bullshit!

Earlier this year I had a stent put in because of blockage. One of the first things the doctor told me was to quit eating beef. He said that when we are young and growing we need lots of protein. As we age, we need less & less. He said when we are in our 50s this protein that we no longer have any use for starts to plug our arteries.
I am also being treated for a degenerative bone disease so I started to do some research. The first thing I find is that protein helps prevent bone loss & older people are not getting enough protein.
This morning in a supplement to our Sunday paper was a flyer from a hospital. Told about this young healthy woman who had a heart attack. The article stated that since she was already healthy and exercising, she had to cut out red beef and soda pop. (yes, it stated ‘red beef ‘!)

I then Googled ‘beef and blockage‘, ’arteries & protein, and several other searches. I’d be willing to bet 75% of the hits I got were from vegetarian or animal rights groups.
Without the check off, who would be countering this information? Who is funding studies to ward off these attacks? These attacks are against beef, not USA beef, Canadian beef, Mexican beef, etc. While we are in a pissing contest over who’s beef should be promoted, all beef is under attack! At this same time, check off is also under attack!

There are times to stop picking apart the little things and look at the whole picture. There are no small unorganized groups that have the resources to counter these attacks on beef while educating consumers on the plus side. (yes, I’m talking about countering attacks & don’t want to raise the beef vs. cattle issue as this affects all!) We need the checkoff!

You are being put in the same category as cigarette manufactures! Doctors are telling people that the product you raise is killing them!

With the aging population that we have now, I hope the ad about beef having the same protein as 8 chicken breasts (or whatever the amount was) is targeted at bone loss because if people continue to believe the blockage theory, they will also believe they can eat 7 chicken breasts safer than they can eat a piece of beef!
I will admit that I don’t have a clue on this good cholesterol-bad cholesterol stuff.

I know these are a bunch of rambling thoughts but I believe we have to think a little farther than our own gates on this one. Any further ‘civil’ discussion on this will be greatly appreciated. (please, lets not turn this into a finger pointing, name calling, blaming contest! Lets talk about what we can do to deal with some challenges!)
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,705
Reaction score
0
Location
Mississippi, USA
Fedup2, I only want to make a few comments because I want to see what other have to say about this. I believe you hit the root of beef's demand problems with this...
"Doctors are telling people that the product you raise is killing them!"
The checkoff, not aggressively countering this misinformation, is the reason it is ineffective. Research is out their that counters this misinformation, but also addresses other problems in the industry that industry leaders don't want to see addressed . The thing that I let guide me sorting through this, was that the 'right' answer had to agree with Nature.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
fedup, You are exactly correct and that is my point. If the USDA is controlled by the NCBA and it was taken over by the packers who own these substitutes, how in the world is there going to be any research/advertisement on the fact that beef is not the boogy man? Tysons essentially has a veto on any real advertisements that allow beef to compete against chicken. Swift on pigs.

The USDA has got to be purged from the packer interests. Period. Any checkoff dollars until that is done are going to be wasted.

What do you think?
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Fedup2,you are absolutely right on target with your remarks here! Have you looked up the research projects currently ongoing re. nutrients of beef? I'm not up on them like I want to be, but believe there are some really exciting ones coming along well WITH THE LIMITED DOLLARS AVAILABLE.

Lack of money is probably the major stumbling block to more research and better dissemination of the research results to the medical profession, IMO. The Beef Checkoff funding is a drop in the bucket compared with availability of money to those attacking beef in various ways, unfortunately.

RobertMac, do you know everything being done with Checkoff money to counter that misinformation? What suggestions do you have for the checkoff to more effectively use the small amount of dollars available in this effort? Every research committee meeting I've attended has included pleas for ideas to improve on what is being done. What are the "other problems in the industry that industry leaders don't want to see addressed"? I agree with Fedup2 that it is time for everyone involved in the cattle/beef industry to pitch in and share ideas and work to make it the best it can be.

MRJ
 

fedup2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
794
Reaction score
0
This reminds me so much of Reps and Dems who kill one good idea or bill after another because they are so worried about who is going to get the credit! Can you imagine the good that could be done if they just worked together occasionally.

While most are sitting here fighting over supply, special groups are tearing your demand to shreds!
If I told someone beef is good for them and their doctor told them it would give them a heart attack, who do you think they will believe? There is no question about that! Now take the largest aging population, and take the doctors, animal rights groups, vegetarians, etc spreading this misinformation to them without anyone countering it. Then wonder what happened to beef demand.

Do not tear this check off apart because of political differences! If someone is going to donate a calf and wants the money to do some good, donate it to the check off.
There is a lot of experience and brain power on this forum. Although wasted like a college students brain on dollar a beer night, on petty name calling, childish arguments, & ego’s!

Anyone who has ever read my posts knows I do not chose sides in the bullshit sessions. I come here to learn, to hear different opinions, to see things from other points of view. It is my opinion that if you do not fight together for beef now, by the best tool available at this time, The Checkoff, you will have nothing to fight over later! I am not claiming its perfect! I am claiming it’s the best tool that you have right now, and I've never seen a time when it been needed more.

Just sharing my opinion as worthless as it may be. LOL! Thanks for sharing yours.
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Lack of money is probably the major stumbling block to more research and better dissemination of the research results to the medical profession, IMO. The Beef Checkoff funding is a drop in the bucket compared with availability of money to those attacking beef in various ways, unfortunately.


$49.4 million budget is a drop in the bucket?
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
rancher said:
Lack of money is probably the major stumbling block to more research and better dissemination of the research results to the medical profession, IMO. The Beef Checkoff funding is a drop in the bucket compared with availability of money to those attacking beef in various ways, unfortunately.


$49.4 million budget is a drop in the bucket?

rancher, just think of all the organizations promoting vegetarianism, environmental extremists getting laws and rules that are making raising animals more costly, animal worship under the guise of rights, pseudo science/physician anti-meat activism.......and on and on. The money they con out of people, foundations and even government seems endless when compared to the checkoff income.

MRJ
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Fedup: "Without the check off, who would be countering this information? Who is funding studies to ward off these attacks? These attacks are against beef, not USA beef, Canadian beef, Mexican beef, etc. While we are in a pissing contest over who’s beef should be promoted, all beef is under attack! At this same time, check off is also under attack!"

Fedup you are right on target. That is precisely why the checkoff is fighting those battles.


Econ.: "If the USDA is controlled by the NCBA and it was taken over by the packers who own these substitutes, how in the world is there going to be any research/advertisement on the fact that beef is not the boogy man?"

Econ, as always, you could't be further from the truth. Tyson didn't invest in the beef industry to watch it die at the expense of poultry and pork. They want all of their entities to be equally profitable. To suggest otherwise is simply more of your never ending baseless conspiracy theories.

Good post Fedup!


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Fedup: "Without the check off, who would be countering this information? Who is funding studies to ward off these attacks? These attacks are against beef, not USA beef, Canadian beef, Mexican beef, etc. While we are in a pissing contest over who’s beef should be promoted, all beef is under attack! At this same time, check off is also under attack!"

Fedup you are right on target. That is precisely why the checkoff is fighting those battles.


Econ.: "If the USDA is controlled by the NCBA and it was taken over by the packers who own these substitutes, how in the world is there going to be any research/advertisement on the fact that beef is not the boogy man?"

Econ, as always, you could't be further from the truth. Tyson didn't invest in the beef industry to watch it die at the expense of poultry and pork. They want all of their entities to be equally profitable. To suggest otherwise is simply more of your never ending baseless conspiracy theories.

Good post Fedup!


~SH~

No, they are taking integration (which is another way of saying market power) to a new level. They are not just interested in poultry, they are interested in ALL of the meats. They have, according to 12 jurors, swung the beef markets at the expense of the producers. They continue to expand in Canada with a seemingly made up BSE scare and then aborted the reasons they closed the border.

As stated before, Tyson's beef moves had other strategic motives than the beef industry alone. It is too bad that the USDA, like the FDA, is the regulatory arm of the government controlled by corporate interests against the interests of the people, but you make a good spokesman on this forum for them, SH. Why don't you stop calling people names with your baseless opinions and stick just to the "facts".

Did Tyson's poultry division help keep the company out of the red during the border closing fiasco?

The fact is that we need meat processors in this country. They shouldn't have to infiltrate the USDA and give large political donations to be viable businesses and thwart regulatory agencies. When this happens we all lose. Even Tyson. It is like my example of kids cheating in the classroom and getting away with it. It might look like the class is doing better but the quality of education goes downhill. You are a perfect example of that, SH.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,705
Reaction score
0
Location
Mississippi, USA
MRJ said:
rancher, just think of all the organizations promoting vegetarianism, environmental extremists getting laws and rules that are making raising animals more costly, animal worship under the guise of rights, pseudo science/physician anti-meat activism.......and on and on. The money they con out of people, foundations and even government seems endless when compared to the checkoff income.

MRJ

MRJ, I agree with this point...my disagreement with the Checkoff is that this should be our primary, if not only, point of attack. R&D work on value added products should be paid for buy packers. If consumers are afraid to eat beef, the research will be of limited value.

Here is something to think about...

Animal protein and animal fats were major dietary components over thousands of years during the development of the human genome. Why and how have they changed to become harmful dietary components today?
 

katrina

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
8,773
Reaction score
2
Location
East north east of Soapweed
What frost's me, Is that we get New York and Los Angelos news on tv and not one advertisement for beef do I see. Yet open up any beef magizine and what do I see...... advertisements for beef. Lets quit preaching to the choir and get our voice out to the others.
 

fedup2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
794
Reaction score
0
"":lol: :lol: :lol: I cannot believe MRJ that you think the animal rights and vegetarian lobby can match NCBA /Swift / Tyson etc. That's making excuses for ineffective campaigns given that the Checkoff must pay for the very expensive beef ads I hear on TV. No animal rights or vegetarian or even health organization can afford those but if you're saying you're failing then reconsider the message as we have said innumerable times. SAFE beef, high quality beef, ID'ed beef, specialty. Instead I'm paying outrageous prices for poor quality generic beef that is tasteless and you ranchers admit it. Trying to get people to eat larger amounts of beef daily in this environment is silly. Concentrate on specific campaigns and target customer sets versus jingles.[/quote]""
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

R/2nd

Have you given much consideration to your statement that no animal rights group-vegitarian lobby can match...............

When was the last time you went to a movie or watched one on your TV? It is always Animal good---Man bad! Animals are always portrayed as lovable pets. People that eat them are heartless s.o.bs! These points are made often in movies and they are watched by millions of people. They are put in childrens books, magazines, etc. These people are making their points daily through highly watched and read media.
They don't need to spend the kind of money you do to counter their points! Ranchers are probably the most caring people for animals that there are, but as long as you raise animals to eat, you are projected as bad people. That is what you are up against.

Just sharing a different point of view.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
fedup2 said:
"":lol: :lol: :lol: I cannot believe MRJ that you think the animal rights and vegetarian lobby can match NCBA /Swift / Tyson etc. That's making excuses for ineffective campaigns given that the Checkoff must pay for the very expensive beef ads I hear on TV. No animal rights or vegetarian or even health organization can afford those but if you're saying you're failing then reconsider the message as we have said innumerable times. SAFE beef, high quality beef, ID'ed beef, specialty. Instead I'm paying outrageous prices for poor quality generic beef that is tasteless and you ranchers admit it. Trying to get people to eat larger amounts of beef daily in this environment is silly. Concentrate on specific campaigns and target customer sets versus jingles.
""
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

R/2nd

Have you given much consideration to your statement that no animal rights group-vegitarian lobby can match...............

When was the last time you went to a movie or watched one on your TV? It is always Animal good---Man bad! Animals are always portrayed as lovable pets. People that eat them are heartless s.o.bs! These points are made often in movies and they are watched by millions of people. They are put in childrens books, magazines, etc. These people are making their points daily through highly watched and read media.
They don't need to spend the kind of money you do to counter their points! Ranchers are probably the most caring people for animals that there are, but as long as you raise animals to eat, you are projected as bad people. That is what you are up against.

Just sharing a different point of view.[/quote]

fedup2, It really does matter HOW you raise them.
 

fedup2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
794
Reaction score
0
First of all, I would like to apologize for my poor communication skills. My thoughts are somehow scrambled between my brain and the keyboard. I will keep an eye on my fingers! LOL!

I want to make it clear that I don’t shake pom-poms for any group or organization and I am not here to criticize any group or anyone. You posted your thoughts and as it is your money being spent, you have a right to be heard. The opinions of people paying the check off should be very important to those administrating those funds.

My only point to your post is that the Hollywood types :writers, producers, actors, etc. tend to be fanatical. They believe this is a Walt Disney world where the deer & the antelope play. In their world there are no predators! Everything dies of natural causes. They miss no opportunity to inject their beliefs in every movie, book, comment, etc. It takes a lot of money to correct some of these good intentioned but often misguided thoughts.

I will stand by my statement that farmers and ranchers are the best friends that animals have. (how about I add ‘most’) They are the ones out there at 3 in the morning in a blizzard trying to save these animals. The Hollywood types are home with their martinis sitting on there fat warm @sses donating money with their visa cards to these fanatical groups.

Again, I would like to see some of this criticism changed to constructive views. I have heard what was wrong, who is bad and who is good, but I have heard very few positive contributions. What do you suggest?
 

fedup2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
794
Reaction score
0
As far as bad communication skills, I sometimes substitute words that I want to say with words that are easier to spell. Found this little story that will explain it better.
---------------------------------------------

Emily Sue passed away and Bubba called 911. The 911 operator told Billy Bob that she would send someone out right away.

Where do you live?" asked the operator.

Billy Bob replied, "At the end of Eucalyptus Drive."

The operator asked, "Can you spell that for me?"

There was a long pause and finally Billy Bob said, "How 'bout if I drag her over to Oak Street and you pick her up there?"
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
From my point of view, we have to get the economics down correctly before some of the problems can be fixed.

If rkaiser, MRJ, Robert Mac, Calicrate, or any of the other ones are to succeed, we can not have predatory pricing, market participants being "punished" by one of the real big guys, or cheating of the current base of producers. All of these things drive the price down to unsustainable levels and then the beef cycle reacts to it and creates higher prices for beef. Pork and chicken can react to these changes rather quickly with their reproductive rates but cattle can not. When this happens, market share is lost and the balance free markets creates is not at its maximum utility. This produces gains for pork and chicken packers, not producers, and will allow those packers to have more resources to "buy" their additional market share like what just happened in Canada.

If we don't let free markets work with the rules (and laws) that have been enacted as a result of the last go round this market power thing happend, we are doomed to have the same results that we had back then.

Given what is happening to checkoff dollars or who is ultimately in control of those dollars, the checkoff should be more accurately defined as the ripoff.

What packer ever really paid the price of the BSE problem that they themselves created? If they don't really have to pay a price and the government bails them out, we are left with the same sorry management that caused the problems in the first place. Cattlemen are not the only ones who need to change as Jason proposes. Increased efficiency does not always lead to higher profitability. Sometimes it just leads to lower prices. Many times this comes at the expense of our environment, worker's health, costs passed on to producers, etc......

Someone once asked me why I wanted to get rid of Tysons. My question is why do we want to keep Tysons? Just look at how they operate. There is better management out there. The packing plants will still be there and the beef will still get processed by someone. There just might be a better balance in our economy with more opportunity for the people mentioned in my second paragraph.
 

fedup2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
794
Reaction score
0
Econ
Many years ago I heard a story about a kid who went to a red light district and offered an old madam $20 to have sex with him. The old madam asked the kid why he picked her. The kid responded “you have VD don’t you? The madam replied “yes.” The kid said “If I have sex with you, then I’ll get vd right? Again the madam responded “yes”. The kid said “and when I have sex with my neighbors wife, she will get vd right”? And when she has sex with the milkman, he’ll get it right”? The madam responded “yes” to both questions. The kid then said “Good! Because that’s the S.O.B I want to get for running over my dog“!

No offense meant Econ, but your post reminded me of that story. You don't care what happens to beef demand because if you can hurt the checkoff, you can hurt the NCBA, and that will hurt the packers, and that will get the Tysens! And they are the s.o.b.s you are trying to get! LOL!

Sorry Econ, I'm having a hard time with your resonse, but I will leave it at that. Have a nice day.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
fedup2 said:
Econ
Many years ago I heard a story about a kid who went to a red light district and offered an old madam $20 to have sex with him. The old madam asked the kid why he picked her. The kid responded “you have VD don’t you? The madam replied “yes.” The kid said “If I have sex with you, then I’ll get vd right? Again the madam responded “yes”. The kid said “and when I have sex with my neighbors wife, she will get vd right”? And when she has sex with the milkman, he’ll get it right”? The madam responded “yes” to both questions. The kid then said “Good! Because that’s the S.O.B I want to get for running over my dog“!

No offense meant Econ, but your post reminded me of that story. You don't care what happens to beef demand because if you can hurt the checkoff, you can hurt the NCBA, and that will hurt the packers, and that will get the Tysens! And they are the s.o.b.s you are trying to get! LOL!

Sorry Econ, I'm having a hard time with your resonse, but I will leave it at that. Have a nice day.

I don't want to get Tyson's, necessarily, I want the illegal market power games that are being played to not work. I have no problems if Tyson got in trouble for breaking the rules as long as they pay the price. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Tyson has figured out that its influence on capital hill can let them get out of being a good corporate citizen. Getting away with that brings the whole common denominator down with all of the competitors. Similar to my cheating in class scenario. It might have made the class get higher scores, but it did nothing for the quality of education-- it just fooled a lot of people. If Tyson wants to go whoring around on capital hill, let them get the shaft, not market particpants. We have a system that rewards them for bad behavior and that is counter productive.

fedup2, there is a series of moves (economic power plays) in the background to all you are seeing and I am just bringing light to those moves. If you want to whore around town do it on your own dime.

That was a little harsh, fedup2, but my main argument is that beef has to compete with chicken and pork. It is funny that in the current situation, pork and chicken have a veto on beef promotion via the USDA. Chicken had no problem selling its low-fat virtues and beef's saturated fat problems. All of this was done with potentially seriously flawed or only half truth data from research. A good example might be a comparison between an order of McD's french fries and a piece of red meat. I know I would rather eat the meat. I hope the comparison comes out positive. My wife's dad had a heart attack at 40 and I know what I am up against in my own house.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Econ101 said:
From my point of view, we have to get the economics down correctly before some of the problems can be fixed.

If rkaiser, MRJ, Robert Mac, Calicrate, or any of the other ones are to succeed, we can not have predatory pricing, market participants being "punished" by one of the real big guys, or cheating of the current base of producers. All of these things drive the price down to unsustainable levels and then the beef cycle reacts to it and creates higher prices for beef. Pork and chicken can react to these changes rather quickly with their reproductive rates but cattle can not. When this happens, market share is lost and the balance free markets creates is not at its maximum utility. This produces gains for pork and chicken packers, not producers, and will allow those packers to have more resources to "buy" their additional market share like what just happened in Canada.

If we don't let free markets work with the rules (and laws) that have been enacted as a result of the last go round this market power thing happend, we are doomed to have the same results that we had back then.

Given what is happening to checkoff dollars or who is ultimately in control of those dollars, the checkoff should be more accurately defined as the ripoff.

What packer ever really paid the price of the BSE problem that they themselves created? If they don't really have to pay a price and the government bails them out, we are left with the same sorry management that caused the problems in the first place. Cattlemen are not the only ones who need to change as Jason proposes. Increased efficiency does not always lead to higher profitability. Sometimes it just leads to lower prices. Many times this comes at the expense of our environment, worker's health, costs passed on to producers, etc......

Someone once asked me why I wanted to get rid of Tysons. My question is why do we want to keep Tysons? Just look at how they operate. There is better management out there. The packing plants will still be there and the beef will still get processed by someone. There just might be a better balance in our economy with more opportunity for the people mentioned in my second paragraph.

Econ- how can an honest person make such a charge without giving some semblance of proof? Why should anyone believe anything you say when you claim that something bad is happening to the Checkoff dollars and that ranchers are not in control of our checkoff. Certainly, there is USDA oversight, TO ASSURE ADHERENCE TO THE LAW! That does NOT mean there is anything WRONG being done with checkoff money! Unless and until you give factual information to the contrary, how can we think anything else? You insult all the good people who are VOLUNTEERING their time and spending no small amount of their own money to make the checkoff work for ALL cattle producers.

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
MRJ said:
Econ101 said:
From my point of view, we have to get the economics down correctly before some of the problems can be fixed.

If rkaiser, MRJ, Robert Mac, Calicrate, or any of the other ones are to succeed, we can not have predatory pricing, market participants being "punished" by one of the real big guys, or cheating of the current base of producers. All of these things drive the price down to unsustainable levels and then the beef cycle reacts to it and creates higher prices for beef. Pork and chicken can react to these changes rather quickly with their reproductive rates but cattle can not. When this happens, market share is lost and the balance free markets creates is not at its maximum utility. This produces gains for pork and chicken packers, not producers, and will allow those packers to have more resources to "buy" their additional market share like what just happened in Canada.

If we don't let free markets work with the rules (and laws) that have been enacted as a result of the last go round this market power thing happend, we are doomed to have the same results that we had back then.

Given what is happening to checkoff dollars or who is ultimately in control of those dollars, the checkoff should be more accurately defined as the ripoff.

What packer ever really paid the price of the BSE problem that they themselves created? If they don't really have to pay a price and the government bails them out, we are left with the same sorry management that caused the problems in the first place. Cattlemen are not the only ones who need to change as Jason proposes. Increased efficiency does not always lead to higher profitability. Sometimes it just leads to lower prices. Many times this comes at the expense of our environment, worker's health, costs passed on to producers, etc......

Someone once asked me why I wanted to get rid of Tysons. My question is why do we want to keep Tysons? Just look at how they operate. There is better management out there. The packing plants will still be there and the beef will still get processed by someone. There just might be a better balance in our economy with more opportunity for the people mentioned in my second paragraph.

Econ- how can an honest person make such a charge without giving some semblance of proof? Why should anyone believe anything you say when you claim that something bad is happening to the Checkoff dollars and that ranchers are not in control of our checkoff. Certainly, there is USDA oversight, TO ASSURE ADHERENCE TO THE LAW! That does NOT mean there is anything WRONG being done with checkoff money! Unless and until you give factual information to the contrary, how can we think anything else? You insult all the good people who are VOLUNTEERING their time and spending no small amount of their own money to make the checkoff work for ALL cattle producers.

MRJ

MRJ, that budget is 49 million. The harm in the Pickett trial was estimated to be 2.46 billion + -. You chase the little rabbit, I will go after the bear. The bear threw out the little rabbit for you to chase so he could get away.

I do not know if there is ANYTHING wrong being done with the checkoff money. I am sure there are a lot of good minded people working to help things out. Kudos to them. I am just pointing out the bigger game and picture. I just want to make sure that the efforts of all of these people is not used by higher powers without their knowledge.
 

Latest posts

Top