1 in 5 of latest ObamaCare waivers went to Nancy Pelosi’s district?

posted at 8:48 am on May 17, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Well, to be fair, Nancy Pelosi did warn us that we wouldn’t find out what was in ObamaCare until Congress passed it into law.  Now we know what’s in it — political payoffs on an almost, er, Biblical scale:

Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.

That’s in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services approved.

Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn’t have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received Obamacare waivers.

Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments. But Pelosi’s district’s waivers are the first major examples of luxurious, gourmet restaurants and hotels getting a year-long pass from Obamacare.

Just remember, ObamaCare is here to protect the poor.  And Nancy Pelosi is here to protect all of the little people … who serve the rich.

Matthew Boyle profiles a few of the businesses that got waivers from HHS to emphasize the point.  For instance, one might think that a restaurant that charges $59 for a porterhouse steak as Boboquivari’s does could afford to fit its health care plan to Pelosi’s own specifications.  The same goes for Café Mason, with its $60 entrees, and Tru Spa, which Allure Magazine calls “the best day spa in San Francisco.”  If these kinds of high-tone joints can’t afford ObamaCare, then how can anyone else?

The odds of one Representative getting 20% of a batch of waivers from the Obama administration as a coincidence seems rather high.  Once again, we have to wonder exactly how waiver applications are judged and approved.  With its high percentage of unions and party leader constituents, this is looking more and more like a mechanism for political payoffs.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Will someone please explain to me how all these waivers don’t violate the equal protection clause? Oh wait, I forgot. We live under the Law of Rule now.

Expatriating to Chile is sounding better with every passing day.

Rae on May 17, 2011 at 12:04 PM

Well I am no legal scholar but I spend the night at a Holiday inn Express last night, seems to me that the 14th amendment’s equal protection may come into play with this waiver nonsense. The waivers are unconstitutional. Again obama has violated the US constitution by legislating from the executive office. Congress passed the law then they should be the ones that are or are not giving waivers.
The only thing he is supposed to do is enforce the law NOT granting some people exemptions from the law. If obummer was to start granting some people exemptions from paying income tax I wonder how many people would be OK with that?
Just my humble opinion.
ROFLMAO darn you Rae You beat me to it but I will tack this on just for Sh*ts n giggles

ColdWarrior57 on May 17, 2011 at 12:09 PM

Palin (since HA won’t report it):

Seriously, this is corrupt. And anyone who still supports the Pelosi-Reid-Obama agenda of centralized government takeovers of the free market and the corresponding crony capitalism is, in my book, complicit.

faraway on May 17, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2011 at 11:54 AM

Yep, Del, it certainly is comedy gold how the MSM can spin this economy into one of hope and improvement.

Invest in things that can’t devalue. We bought property.

hawkdriver on May 17, 2011 at 12:15 PM

Thanks for admitting that they are the only ones in the MSM doing the job of actually reporting these days.

Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2011 at 11:54 AM

Comedy gold!

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 12:01 PM

Please prove me wrong. On this story, the media except for Fox and some blogs, like Forbes and the 2 San Francisco newspapers, are totally silent.

And what of CNN? For 10 years, they totally refused to report on Saddam Hussein’s atrocities against his own citizens.

And more recently, CNN refused to divulge that one of its “anchors”, Fareed Zakaria, was also advising O’bama. His role was outed by another CNN critter.

Want Comedy Gold? That same CNN, years earlier, had taken Faux News to task for doing the same thing.

The news that CNN’s Fareed Zakaria has had private conversations with Barack Obama unveiled a glaring double standard at that network, as back in November 2002, when it was revealed that Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes sent a memo to then President George W. Bush regarding his post-9/11 actions CNN anchors threw a fit.

As the MRC’s Brent Baker reported in the November 19 CyberAlert, CNN anchors throughout an entire broadcast day expressed outrage at Ailes’ actions, led by Jack Cafferty and Paula Zahn’s mocking of Fox News as a biased network, as seen in this November 18, 2002 exchange:

JACK CAFFERTY: Listen Paula, I have a story that may interest you here, a story that might be good for what ails you. That’s as in “Roger Ailes,” the guy who runs Fox News, that low-budget operation down the street with the red letters.

PAULA ZAHN: Does that shed new light on “we report, you decide” Jack?

CAFFERTY: “Fair and balanced” [laughter] We better leave that alone.

Fast forward to 2011 and the CNN reaction to Zakaria advising Obama has been half-hearted at best. After Zakaria’s colleague Eliot Spitzer, on Thursday’s In The Arena, told him that it “brought a smile to my face” and “makes my heart warm” to learn Obama “calls you for wisdom and advice,” Zakaria attempted a meager backtrack on his website. On the official site for his CNN show, Fareed Zakaria GPS, he insisted that he just “had a couple of conversations with the President, off-the-record. At no point did President Obama ask me for advice on a specific policy.”

The MRC’s Baker reported, on Sunday’s Reliable Sources, Howard Kurtz “only offered a gentle reprimand” of Zakaria:

Kurtz relayed how Zakaria claimed “that the two meetings he’s had with Obama in recent months give him a sense of the President’s thinking, and that he used to have the same kinds of meetings with, for example, Condi Rice.”

Kurtz decided: “I agree with Fareed’s last point, that part of what he’s getting at the White House is high-level spin. That’s why I think the fact of the meetings should have been disclosed. Zakaria says that’s not part of the arrangement, but it should be. Otherwise, people will inevitably have doubts when word leaks out.”

Hardly the tongue-lashing CNN delivered to its much higher rated competitor Fox News in 2002.

Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Please prove me wrong. On this story, the media except for Fox and some blogs, like Forbes and the 2 San Francisco newspapers, are totally silent.

That could be because FNC is the only news outlet brave and intrepid enough to take on this corrupt, fascist administration.

Or it could be because this is a complete non-story and FNC is the only news outlet partisan enough to try to take it up.

You decide.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 12:24 PM

The most corrupt administration in modern political history. The O’Bonehead Democrats make the Nixon administration look like the Girl Scouts.

Jaibones on May 17, 2011 at 12:33 PM

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 12:24 PM

At least you’re admitting you’re fascist.

MadDogF on May 17, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Palin (since HA won’t report it):

Seriously, this is corrupt. And anyone who still supports the Pelosi-Reid-Obama agenda of centralized government takeovers of the free market and the corresponding crony capitalism is, in my book, complicit.

faraway on May 17, 2011 at 12:10 PM

I saw her whole piece at the Daily Caller.
Where are all the other Presidential wanna- bees on this?

Palin is the only one who continuelly sticks her neck out. The other pretenders wait to see which way the wind blows. Pathetic!

idesign on May 17, 2011 at 12:41 PM

it could be because this is a complete non-story

Really? How so?

It would seem that only the corrupt and the imbecilic would think so.

Jaibones on May 17, 2011 at 12:47 PM

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 12:24 PM

Keep telling yourself that useful idiot.

CWforFreedom on May 17, 2011 at 12:49 PM

So only some people have to pay

is it true that the monke,… Muzzies have been waived because of their cultish beliefs?

I must say I have a true emnity for these animals that are polluting our society along with the lib scum that prefer slavery to liberty

clean your firearms

we are going to need them

Sonosam on May 17, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Another question

are there any politicians who are Jewish that aren’t big gov marxists?

I’d like to know

Sonosam on May 17, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Or it could be because this is a complete non-story

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 12:24 PM

I couldn’t live with myself if I had to tell lies like that just to justify my corrupt leader.

faraway on May 17, 2011 at 12:57 PM

It’s to bad all the nuts and fruits and illegals took over one of the most beautiful states in the union.

They hate the Military,Police,Laws on the books, I wonder when they are attacked or fall into the ocean who they call for help, I would suggest Pelosi.
I used to live in Ca. but had to move because I didn’t speak Mexican(Spanish) just kidding but it is just about true.
When they give it back to Mexico and becomes another cesspool they’ll just claim another state movin on up.

concernedsenior on May 17, 2011 at 12:59 PM

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 12:24 PM
Keep telling yourself that useful idiot.

CWforFreedom on May 17, 2011 at 12:49 PM

I doubt It’s a useful idiot. I think It’s a young, knowing and paid idiot.

Or It’s a liberal sock puppet Hot Air uses to stir the pot.

Stayright on May 17, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Please prove me wrong. On this story, the media except for Fox and some blogs, like Forbes and the 2 San Francisco newspapers, are totally silent.

That could be because FNC is the only news outlet brave and intrepid enough to take on this corrupt, fascist administration.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 12:24 PM

Thanks for admitting the truth. And for totally ignoring what I said about CNN.

Comedy Gold, indeed.

Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2011 at 1:01 PM

More on GPS Guy from Newsbusters:

For decades, the liberal media have repeatedly condemned conservatives in the media who communicated privately with Republican presidents. They furiously attacked George Will in 1980 when he advised candidate Ronald Reagan, and trounced on Roger Ailes when he sent President Bush a note about the new war on terror in the wake of September 11th. Neither of them was a reporter.

Zakaria is a reporter – or says so. To now claim that Zakaria’s covert meetings do not conflict with his journalistic integrity is not only inaccurate, it’s hypocritical by CNN’s standards. As such, Zakaria must recuse himself immediately from covering foreign policy that affects the United States. A refusal to extricate himself is in clear violation of CNN’s journalistic principles.

Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Really? How so?

It would seem that only the corrupt and the imbecilic would think so.

Jaibones on May 17, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Haha. There was a waiver thread yesterday, and I asked commenters here to explain why they’re outraged about the waivers. No one was able to do so. The gripes were either completely unrelated to the waivers or they didn’t make any sense. I really think you guys just hear “Obamacare” and “waiver” and it gets your blood boiling. It’s very entertaining to watch.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Palin (since HA won’t report it):

Seriously, this is corrupt. And anyone who still supports the Pelosi-Reid-Obama agenda of centralized government takeovers of the free market and the corresponding crony capitalism is, in my book, complicit.

faraway on May 17, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Just got here and was going to post this, but you already did. Thanks for doing that. Have any of the other candidates said anything about this? NO.

Mirimichi on May 17, 2011 at 1:08 PM

crr6, I’m sure you think your babbling makes sense.

faraway on May 17, 2011 at 1:09 PM

Haha. There was a waiver thread yesterday, and I asked commenters here to explain why they’re outraged about the waivers. No one was able to do so. The gripes were either completely unrelated to the waivers or they didn’t make any sense. I really think you guys just hear “Obamacare” and “waiver” and it gets your blood boiling. It’s very entertaining to watch.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:06 PM

The fact that you have to ask clearly demonstrates your “usefulness”.

stvnscott on May 17, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Haha. There was a waiver thread yesterday, and I asked commenters here to explain why they’re outraged about the waivers. No one was able to do so.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:06 PM

1. So far, 26% of the waivers have gone to labor unions. However, labor unions only make up 12% of all workers.

No one in the MSM except for FNC has bothered to report that anomaly.

2. We don’t know what the “standards” for granting the waivers is, because the O’bama people refuse to tell us.

3. And related to #2, we know who has been granted waivers. Shouldn’t we also have a right to know who also applied for those waivers, but were turned down?

Comedy Gold, Banya.

Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2011 at 1:14 PM

2. We don’t know what the “standards” for granting the waivers is are, because the O’bama people refuse to tell us.

Fixed.

Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2011 at 1:15 PM

Palin is the only one who continuelly sticks her neck out. The other pretenders wait to see which way the wind blows. Pathetic!

idesign on May 17, 2011 at 12:41 PM

I disagree. The other pretenders are too chicken even to stick their fingers in the air. We will never hear from them. The new uprising star Cain? Big money man Mitt? T-Paw? Daniels? Newt? HaHa that is the biggest joke.

Mirimichi on May 17, 2011 at 1:19 PM

Haha. There was a waiver thread yesterday, and I asked commenters here to explain why they’re outraged about the waivers. No one was able to do so.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:06 PM

There exists a quaint American notion that the law applies equally to all.

Stayright on May 17, 2011 at 1:20 PM

1. So far, 26% of the waivers have gone to labor unions. However, labor unions only make up 12% of all workers.

You mean businesses with workers who are represented by labor unions?

2. We don’t know what the “standards” for granting the waivers is, because the O’bama people refuse to tell us.

Wrong.

You’re dismissed.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:21 PM

What a sad little life crr

faraway on May 17, 2011 at 1:23 PM

Someone here explain me this: If a constituent or a party member calls on the Executive (Governor, President) on a direct violation of the Constitution, you can pinpoint exactly which number to a “T”, why there’s no effort to pursue to follow the rule of law and undo the damage?

I don’t understand what can people and politicians accomplish by chanting “that’s unconstitutional” instead of DOING something about it.

And don’t give me the “it’s Obama” excuse. You respect the Constitution, you seek and elect politicians that follow it and therefore these people call themselves “constitutional conservatives.”

If the shoe won’t fit…

ProudPalinFan on May 17, 2011 at 1:28 PM

Haha. There was a waiver thread yesterday, and I asked commenters here to explain why they’re outraged about the waivers. No one was able to do so. The gripes were either completely unrelated to the waivers or they didn’t make any sense. I really think you guys just hear “Obamacare” and “waiver” and it gets your blood boiling. It’s very entertaining to watch.
crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:06 PM

here’s one pertaining to the waivers fellator

is it not the least bit interesting to you that so many should be excused from paying into this government takeover while benefitting from it?

Of course we know that the plan sucks and is designed specifically to

A: enrich a specific people with loads of taxpayer money

B: wreck the USA

only a groupie like yourself can support such an atrocious usurping of our rights

no body with a brain will put themselves through years of schooling so they can be used by hollow bureaucrats and sued by virulent lawyers

we will end up filling the demand with paki drs like the Brits do, but that’s the plan though isn’t it?

The loss of autonomy

liberalism is a desease that directly attacks just that, autonomy and self-sufficientcy

it’ll come to blows before you succeed

Sonosam on May 17, 2011 at 1:29 PM

But Democrats look out for the little guy. I know because I’m constantly being told about it by them and people who think being dependent on govt is somehow helpful to the poor. When it actually works and doesn’t bankrupt the country, I’ll let you all know.

Yakko77 on May 17, 2011 at 1:40 PM

I couldn’t live with myself if I had to tell lies like that just to justify my corrupt leader.

faraway on May 17, 2011 at 12:57 PM

I’ll wager you’d be shocked and maybe a little disgusted to find what cr666 can live with.

CurtZHP on May 17, 2011 at 2:40 PM

2. We don’t know what the “standards” for granting the waivers is, because the O’bama people refuse to tell us.

Wrong.

You’re dismissed.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:21 PM

LOL! Nice try, but no cigar. First of all, you might have misunderstood my question; what I meant was that they won’t tell us what their criteria is for refusing waivers.

But as for that bulletin you cite, it is intentionally nebulous. See the bottom of Page 3, where it
says:

While the waiver applications are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, several factors related to the test established in the IFR may be considered as each application is reviewed.

In other words, no set in stone criteria for determining who gets the waivers. And no explanation or criteria to explain why those who are refused were refused.

And you ignored totally the other part of my question-don’t we have a right to know who was refused those waivers? And why?

Getting back to Faux News, I noted that they were the only major media outlet covering this waiver thing today, while ABC, C-BS, NBC, PBS, NPR, CNN, and MSDNC have all spiked it.

Can you give us examples of the reverse happening? Has Faux News ever spiked a major story that all of the outlets named above covered?

And remember, it was a Fox News Channel affiliate in Portland Maine that broke the Dubyah DUI story 4 days before the 2000 election.

Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2011 at 3:06 PM

So only some people have to pay

is it true that the monke,… Muzzies have been waived because of their cultish beliefs?…

Sonosam on May 17, 2011 at 12:51 PM

True, muslims will be exempt from the mandate when that aspect is implemented. The beginning of sharia…

slickwillie2001 on May 17, 2011 at 3:14 PM

Harry Reid won’t be outdone by Nancy Pelosi …

The Health and Human Services Department announced late Friday that Nevada had secured a statewide waiver from certain implementation requirements of the Obama administration’s health care law, because forcing them through, the department found, “may lead to the destabilization of the individual market.”

J_Crater on May 17, 2011 at 3:15 PM

Wrong.

You’re dismissed.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:21 PM

….No crr,what’s wrong is watching you whine with faux superiority about waivers that are having to be dished out on an enormous basis due to the fact that Obama’s signature legislation is such an unmitigated disaster.

If you and your liberal heroes were anywhere near as smart as you think you are….these waivers would not even be an issue.

The only dismissing that needs to be done is any consideration of listening to the failed liberal policies and pathetic rhetoric that regularly comes from useful idiots like yourself.

Baxter Greene on May 17, 2011 at 3:24 PM

LOL! Nice try, but no cigar.

Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2011 at 3:06 PM

Sorry Del, but the judges are calling that a first-round TKO. Better luck next time!

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 3:31 PM

If the plan is so good, why waive a single person?

Why did Obama and the Congress waive themselves out of it?

Drink the water fools. We’ll drink the wine.

And crr6 doesn’t undestand the opposition to waivers…the mind boggles.

Schadenfreude on May 17, 2011 at 3:32 PM

Sorry Del, but the judges are calling that a first-round TKO. Better luck next time!

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 3:31 PM

Translated: “I can’t answer Del’s questions without looking like a hypocritical idiot.”

Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2011 at 3:42 PM

Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2011 at 3:42 PM

excellent work

by the way I’m sure it’s all covered under the ” secretary shall decide” clause just in case the jumble of a law has any small, niggardly flaws

kathleen sebelious could be one of the most powerful people in the world while unelected

surely the Founders would have seen no problems with this

And crr6 has, through her many statements, a whore to totalitarianism

Sonosam on May 17, 2011 at 4:16 PM

Small business owner Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters wonders:

Just think if current Speaker John Boehner (R-Oh.) had procured these waivers for his district in Ohio. Can you imagine the media uproar?

Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2011 at 4:16 PM

Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2011 at 3:42 PM

nice work on the worm

I’ve often thought that a crack head with a gun is a minor nuisance compared to that of a communist with a law license

I’m sure they are milling them out at a furious pace and the fact they are ignoring the constitution just adds to the effort

Sonosam on May 17, 2011 at 4:23 PM

The four major problems with top down decision-making societies are that:

1) they tend to become more and more autocratic (as Friedrich A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, 1944, points out);

2) their decision-makers (even when trying to what’s best for all) cannot get things as right as bottom-up decision-making societies can (as Thomas Sowell has so elegantly explained);

3) the decision-makers generally tend to decide on the bases of their own interests rather than on society’s overall interests (as biosocial theory and behaviorism tell us);

4) unlike Marx’s assumptions that top-down benefits would flow “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” actually, they flow “from each according to his ability, to each according to his connections” (as Nancy Pelosi’s ObamaCare waivers prove).

And because of those problems, I think all of us should be small government, bottom-up decision-making conservatives.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on May 17, 2011 at 4:26 PM

Too funny…Mother Jones is now desperately trying to spin this. Dr. Goebbels would approve. Not the use of the word I have bolded.

Last month, the Obama administration granted a reprieve to 204 businesses and policyholders from new health coverage rules under the Affordable Care Act, bringing the total number of waivers to more than 1370.

This makes it sound as if those businesses would go under without a waiver. But as the linked story on this thread notes:

many of them went to high-end restaurants and hotels.

However, before weakly defending these waivers by claiming that Pelosi herself never asked for them, Mother makes the exact same point I made earlier in this thread, one which crr6 refused to answer:

To be sure, it’s worth closely examining which businesses and policyholders have received waivers, as well as which ones have denied them, along with the Obama administration’s rationale for making such decisions. But, as the April waivers reveal, the very fact that reprieves have been granted to businesses residing in democratic districts doesn’t mean the process is unjust. And to assume that the rationale must be political or “corrupt” is to turn a real policy issue into a partisan bludgeon.

To paraphrase Noel at Newsbusters-what Mother Jones would say if Boehner’s district got a similar percentage of waivers? Would they laught hat off too?

No.

Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2011 at 4:44 PM

Wow, another “reporter” has now jumped on this story-but of course, to try and spin it.

Sam Stein is a Political Reporter at the Huffington Post, based in Washington, D.C. Previously he has worked for Newsweek magazine, the New York Daily News and the investigative journalism group Center for Public Integrity. He has a masters from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.

Impeccable credentials, eh what?

Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2011 at 5:33 PM

With its high percentage of unions and party leader constituents, this is looking more and more like a mechanism for political payoffs.

It’s looked like that since February 2009, Ed.

disa on May 17, 2011 at 6:11 PM

Odd that the people and organizations who wanted ObamaCare the most are the one’s now asking for waivers.

GarandFan on May 17, 2011 at 6:16 PM

A reader over at NewsBusters notes:

The underreported story on Obamacare is that fact that the Administration had to manipulate the numbers in order for the CBO to declare the Act deficit-free. But by already granting waivers to over 1300 enterprises, the Act is automatically running at a deficit, and it hasn’t even been fully enacted yet.

Obama knew this game. Pelosi and Reid were counting on Americans having memories as short as their own. And the MSM doesn’t want to report this stuff for fear of damaging Obama’s re-election chances.

Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2011 at 6:47 PM

PELOSI’S OFFICE RESPONDS:

From her spokesman, Drew Hammill: “It is pathetic that there are those who would be cheering for Americans to lose their minimum health coverage or see their premiums increase for political purposes. These waivers are reviewed and granted solely by the Administration in an open and transparent process so workers currently enrolled in ‘mini-med’ policies like those in San Francisco and across the country will not be punished and lose the minimum coverage they already have. These waivers will be eliminated in 2014 when Americans will have an opportunity to shop for affordable coverage on the health exchanges and will no longer be at the mercy of insurance companies placing coverage limits on policies.

The complaints coming from this crowd that supports ending Medicare is just another example of putting politics first.”

Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2011 at 6:53 PM

It is after all, Sanctuary City. Why not for Obamacare as well?

Dean_L_Can on May 17, 2011 at 9:58 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/welfare-queen-states/2011/05/17/AFzTK45G_story.html

hmmm… everyone seems to want a piece of Uncle Sugar’s largesse

Bradky on May 18, 2011 at 8:42 AM

OUTLAW ALL F***ING OCARE WAIVERS.

ic1redeye on May 18, 2011 at 11:58 AM

I guess the people in Piglosi’s district finally read the bill!!

mmcnamer1 on May 18, 2011 at 4:50 PM

ObamaCare for thee but not for me.

SoulGlo on May 18, 2011 at 7:51 PM

Comment pages: 1 2