axcess.me™
AstroTurf or Prairie Fire?

There have been several asides in these pages regarding the Tea Party movement, and I have tried to clarify what I think the Tea Party is all about and who they are. My ruminations have been culled from memory, and I decided to research the movement so that I could answer questions more confidently. What ensued is a 12-page distillation of multiple sources on the origins, philosophy and makeup of the modern Tea Party movement. I will attempt to faithfully summarize those findings here.

Like most spontaneously arising movements, there are several claimants to being the originator/inspiration of the Tea Party movement. Success has many fathers. The Tea Parties were a series of protests across America beginning in early 2009, and were part of a nascent, larger anti-tax political movement called the Tea Party movement, which focuses on smaller government, fiscal responsibility, individual freedoms and upholding the Constitution. Commentators promoted Tax Day events on blogs, Twitter, and Facebook, while FOX News regularly featured televised programming leading into and promoting various protest activities[1].

The theme of the iconic Boston Tea Party has long been used by anti-tax protesters with libertarian and conservative viewpoints. It was part of Tax Day protests held throughout the 1990s and earlier[2]. The libertarian theme of the “tea party” protest was previously used by Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) and his supporters as a fundraising event during the primaries of the 2008 presidential campaign to emphasize Paul’s fiscal conservatism, which they later claimed laid the groundwork for the modern-day Tea Party movement[3]. As home mortgage foreclosures increased, and details of the 2009 stimulus bill became known, organized protests began to emerge[4]. The character of the Tea Parties has since diverged significantly from Paul’s anti-war and libertarian focus, and Representative Paul has stated that “neocons” who do not accept his policies have become more prevalent in the protests[5]. The Tea Party movement, as it stands today, is conservative rather than libertarian; and conservative rather than Republican.

On January 19 2009, Graham Makohoniuk, a part-time trader and a member of Ticker Forum, posted a casual invitation on the market-ticker.org forums to “Mail a tea bag to congress and to senateDevil”. The idea quickly caught on with others on the forum, some of whom reported being attracted to the inexpensive, easy way to reach “everyone that voted for the bailout[7].” Forum moderator, Stephanie JaskyMusic helped organize the group and worked to “get it to go viral.” The group had previously held DC protests in 2008. On January 19 2009, Jasky had posted a formal invitation “to a commemorative tea party[9].” She suggested they all send tea bags on the same day (February 1 2009) in a coordinated effort. By February 1, the idea had spread among conservative and libertarian-oriented blogs, forums, websites and through a viral eMail campaign. Over 5,000 tea bags were received by the Congressional mail service.

The dominant theme seen at some of the earliest anti-stimulus protests was “pork” rather than tea. The term “porkulus” was coined by radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh on his January 27 2009 broadcast[10], in reference to both the 2009 “stimulus” bill, which was just introduced to the House of Representatives the day before, as well as to pork barrel spending and earmarks[11]. This proved very popular with conservative politicians and commentators, who began to unify in opposition against stimulus spending after the 2008 General Election.

Though it was not the first protest of the Obama administration or of the stimulus, New York Times reporter Kate Zernike, reports that some within the Tea Party credit Seattle blogger and conservative activist Keli Carender with organizing the first Tea Party on February 16 2009. Ms Carendar organized what she called A “Porkulus Protest” on President’s Day, before, as she says, “Rick Santelli’s rant!”, referring to the CNBC reporter who called for protests after the announcement of the AIG executive bonuses in the face of increasing home mortgage foreclosures. Ms Carender contacted conservative author and FOX News contributor, Michelle Malkin in order to gain her support and publicize her event. Ms Malkin promoted the protest in several posts on her blog, saying that “There should be one of these in every town in America,” and that she would be supplying the crowd with a meal of pulled pork. The protest was held in Seattle on Presidents Day, February 16, the day before President Obama signed the stimulus bill into law[12]. Malkin encouraged her readers to stage similar events in Denver on February 17 where President Obama planned to sign the stimulus bill into law.

On February 19 2009[13], in a broadcast from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, CNBC Business News Network editor Rick Santelli loudly criticized the government plan to refinance mortgages, which had just been announced the day before, as “promoting bad behavior” by “subsidizing losers’ mortgages” and raised the possibility of putting together a “Chicago Tea Party in July[14]”. A number of the traders and brokers around him cheered on his proposal, to the apparent amusement of the hosts in the studio. It was called “the rant heard round the world”. According to The New Yorker writer Ben McGrath[15] and New York Times reporter Kate Zernike[16], this is where the movement was first inspired to coalesce under the collective banner of “Tea Party.” By the next day, guests on FOX News had already begun to mention this new “Tea Party.”

The rest, as they say, is history. My contention that the movement got its momentum from the August town hall meetings is wrong – the movement was gaining steam by the time the town halls got going, and no doubt energized some of the participants in those meetings. What exploded in the wake of the disastrous town halls was media coverage of the Tea Party movement – mostly dismissive and derisive.

Much has been written, here and elsewhere, about just who these “Tea Partiers” are. Well, CBS News and the New York Times conducted a poll on this very subject, and the results are enlightening[17]. This poll was conducted among a random sample of 1,580 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone April 5-12 2010. Phone numbers were dialed from RDD samples of both standard land-lines and cell phones. The sampling error is ±3 percentage points. An oversample of people who describe themselves as supporters of the Tea Party movement were interviewed, for a total of 881 interviews. The results were then weighted in proportion to the adult population. The margin of error for the sample of Tea Party supporters is ±3 points. This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

18% of Americans (that’s 40,418,730 people[18]) identify as Tea Party supporters. Over three in four Tea Party supporters (78%) have never attended a rally or donated to a group; most have also not visited a Tea Party website. For the purposes of the poll, those who have attended a rally or donated to a group have been deemed Tea Party “activists.” 4% of Americans fall into this category (8,981,940 people). Unusually populated by small business owners, they tend to skew older: three in four are 45 years old or older, including 29% who are 65 plus. They are also more likely to be men (59%) than women (41%). More than one in three (36%) hails from the South, far more than any other region. 25% come from the West, 22% from the Midwest, and 18% from the Northeast. They tend to be better educated than most Americans: 37% are college graduates, compared to 25% of Americans overall. They also have a higher-than-average household income, with 56% making more than $50,000 per year. The vast majority of them – 89% – are white. Just 1% is black.

Based on recent votes, Tea Partiers identify themselves as: Usually Republican 48%; Equally Republican and Democrat (i.e., Independent) 25%; Always Republican 18%; Usually/Always Democrat 5%; Other/Don’t Know 4%. Given that these protests are being levied against what is perceived as a leftist agenda, the only surprise is the number of Democrats involved. Nearly three in four describe themselves as conservative, and 39% call themselves very conservative. Forty percent say the US needs a third party, while 52% say it does not.

Fifty-three percent of Tea Party supporters describe themselves as “angry” about the way things are going in Washington, compared to 19% of Americans overall who say they are angry. Asked what they are most angry about, the top four answers among Tea Party supporters who identify as angry were the healthcare reform bill (16%), the government not representing the people (14%), government spending (11%) and unemployment and the economy (8%).

Ten percent more Tea Partiers (30% to 20%) believe Mr Obama was born in another country, despite ample evidence to the contrary, than Americans overall. These so-called “birthers”, while more prevalent in Tea Parties, are by no means confined there. Seventy-three percent say Blacks and Whites have equal opportunity, compared to 60% of Americans overall.

Asked about the main goals of the Tea Party, respondents broke down this way: Reduce Role of Federal Government 45%; All of these categories 18%; Creating Jobs 9%; Electing Own Candidates 7%; Other 7%; Lowering Taxes 6%; Cutting Budget 6%.

Sorry this consumed so much space, but I thought the results might be of interest. There are, of course, many more poll results in my 12-page paper, and many more still in the final report of the CBS/New York Times poll, both of which I have.

Notice that this poll was generated by a statistically derived method of obtaining random phone numbers, not a statistically stable sample of likely (or even registered) voters. There is no way to weight this kind of sample to more accurately reflect the views of probable November voters, though these results (for non-Tea Party supporters[19]) are probably close enough for these purposes.


[1] Michael Calderone, Fox teas up a tempest, in Politico, April 15 2009.

[2] Boston Tea Party is protest template, UPI, April 20 2008, available at:

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2008/04/20/Boston-Tea-Party-is-protest-template/UPI-96411208726823/

[3] Ron Paul’s tea party for dollars – 2008 Presidential Campaign Blog – Political Intelligence, in Boston Globe; Statement on Ron Paul and “Tax Day Tea Parties”, Businesswire.com. April 15 2009; Ron Paul raises millions in today’s Boston Tea Party event, in The Boston Globe, December 16 2007; Associated Press, Paul supporters hold Tea Party re-enactment in Boston, in Boston Herald, December 17 2007.

[4] Jeannine Aversa, Washington offers no relief for savers, Associated Press, July 20 2009.

[5] Stephen C Webster, Ron Paul: “Neocon influence” is infiltrating tea parties, in The Raw Story, February 9 2010.

Devil Mail a Tea Bag to Congress & to Senate!, on MarketTicker Forums, January 19 2009.

[7] Single Post Display – MarketTicker Forums, Tickerforum.org, January 28 2009.

Music Founder and director, FedUpUSA – a fiscally conservative, non-partisan activist group whose members describe themselves as “a group of investors” who sprung out of the market-ticker.org forums. See FedUpUSA, About Us, FedUpUSA, April 11 2008, available at::

http://fedupusa.org/about-us/#Who

[9] Pre-Bailout – History, Fedupusa.org.

[10] Tom Kuntz, Idea of the Day: “Porkulus”, in The New York Times, February 8 2009.

[11] Ronald D Utt, Is Pork Barrel Spending Ready to Explode? The Anatomy of an Earmark, The Heritage Foundation, November 10 2004, available at:

http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/wm608.cfm

[12] Michelle Malkin, “Yes, we care!” Porkulus protesters holler back Updated, on Michelle Malkin, February 17 2009, available at:

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/17/yes-we-care-porkulus-protesters-holler-back/

[13] Ben McGrath, The Movement – The Rise of Tea Party Activism, in The New Yorker, February 1 2010, available at:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/02/01/100201fa_fact_mcgrath?currentPage=2

[14] Rick Santelli: I Want to Set the Record Straight, CNBC, March 2 2009; Rick Santelli goes off, in Chicago Tribune, February 23 2009, available at:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-santelli-cnbc-video,0,4962596.htmlstory

[15] Ben McGrath, “Just Ordinary Americans”: Don’t Underestimate the Tea Party Movement, in New Yorker, February 3 2010.

[16] Kate Zernike, Unlikely Activist Who Got to the Tea Party Early, February 27 2010, available at:

www.nytimes.com

[17] CBS News Polling Unit: Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus and Anthony Salvanto, Tea Party Supporters: Who They Are and What They Believe, CBS News/New York Times, April 5-12 2010.

[18] 18% of 224,548,500 Americans 18-years-old and over = 40,418,730 self-identified Tea Party supporters.

[19] I am assuming that a self-identified Tea Party supporter is more likely to vote than someone who answers a randomly dialed phone.


Posted 07-24-2010 9:53 by Eagle Watch

Comments

Libby wrote re: AstroTurf or Prairie Fire?
on 07-26-2010 4:29

This is an interesting historical account of how the current Tea Party movement evolved, EW. Like you, I had forgotten that it didn't actually originate with 2009 August recess town hall meetings. That was just when the Media in general began to take notice of it. And I think that was because all the town hall "protesters" really bumped it up a notch with all their angry shouting and basically boorish behavior. "Get in your congressperson's face and shout at them and shout down any explanation they might offer you. Rant, rave, throw a tantrum, etc. etc." That certainly got everyone's attention. I guess the protestors took their que from Rick Santelli's outburst on CNBC. Hence, the "Angry Mob" strategy was born. And I must say it has been very effective.

But it appears to me that the public in general is beginning to be turned off by the "Angry Mob" scenerio. And the Tea Party movementSleep have recognized this. A year's worth of Angry Mob activity isn't really working very effectively a year later. The public's tolerance for "We're so damn mad you better watch out! We could start rioting!" has worn thin. We older folks remember the Vietnam Era protests and riots too well. After several years of it, the American people started to view all the "Hippies" with disgust and nothing but contempt. Rabble-rousing only works for so long.

Anyway, I think the Tea Party people have certainly picked up on that psychology and are now re-framing their message by distancing themselves from all those more contentious members with absurd claims. Like the birthers and the reverse- discrimination racists. They are busy working on a more sedate and reasonable image: "See? We're just ordinary middle-class Americans who are very reasonably concerned with the problems facing the country.And we urge all of you "reasonable" citizens out there to join with us and gently "steer" the country in the RIGHT direction with your vote in November...Moderation in all things, remember."

Now when we see Tea Party rallies on TV we are presented with images of middle aged, middle class white folks sitting around sedately in lawn chairs holding up very modest signs saying things like "Don't raise my taxes" and "Balance the Budget" and "Repeal Obamacare". Gone are the nasty, cutting, offensive signs they were waving a year ago. Good, smart strategy I think. And it certainly appears to be working from studying all that polling data you have provided. My thoughts for today.

Eagle Watch wrote re: AstroTurf or Prairie Fire?
on 07-26-2010 14:37

We’ll see how effective they are in November … that’s why I’m profiling Senate races that are heavily influenced by Tea Party input.  I’ll continue that series with Florida in the next day or two.  Thursday/Friday are travel days for me, so there will be a hiatus from this end for 30 hours or so, but I should be able get Florida posted before I leave.  

Libby wrote re: AstroTurf or Prairie Fire?
on 07-27-2010 3:00

Good. I'm eagerly awaiting your opinion on the Fla. Senate race.

And about your statement that "We'll see how effective they are in November..." I agree. This mid-term election is the litmus test for the effectiveness of the Tea Party Movement. I would say that if either House of Congress turns over to a Republican majority, then I'll think they have been quite successful. If neither House manages to garner a Republican majority, then I think my assessment of their "rebellion" will be the more accurate. That's the yardstick I'm using to measure their activity, anyway.

You have said that you have compiled a twelve page paper on the Tea Party movement. I would like it if you'd send me a copy through email if you would. I always enjoy reading your documents, you know. And thanx in advance.

Eagle Watch wrote re: AstroTurf or Prairie Fire?
on 07-27-2010 3:28

I don’t think the Tea Party has to turn Congress over to prove their effectiveness.  They’ve already done that.  During the USDA flap, a West Winger was [anonymously] quoted as saying that FOX News and the Tea Parties terrified the White House.  What I’m looking for is how far this translates into elections, and, again, they need not turn Congress to demonstrate that.  That’s why I’ve targeted the Senate races that I have – because these races are pitting candidates with direct Tea Party connections against the establishment.  Many – most – races have nothing or little to do with the Tea Party movement, just plain vanilla disgust with the administration, which the Tea Party movement is also reacting to.  It didn’t invent it.  

As to the 12-page paper on Tea Parties, it’s just a collection of notes and references that I could see was going to generate too long a piece for a blog post, and so I distilled it further as I wrote for EagleWatch.  My point in mentioning it was that it contains further details as to dates and places that are essentially repetition of what was written, but could assist me answering further questions.  

Libby wrote re: AstroTurf or Prairie Fire?
on 07-29-2010 4:07

I must say I'm shocked at your measure of success concerning Tea Party effectiveness. You've set a very low bar in my opinion. I hate to say this but it strikes me that you are becoming one of those "apologists" that you scornfully referred to when you evaluated the Left wing media pundits!

An "anonymous source" leaks the information to the press that the White House is "terrified" of FOX News and the Tea Parties? That's the standard of a Tea Party victory? I guess so if you are grasping at straws...Any bad news no matter how questionable is good news? I do see where you and the FOXIES are coming from though. You are making the case (inferring)  that the Tea Party is so powerful that they are controlling the Obama administration's decisions. If the administration makes any mistakes, it is due directly to the GREAT influence of the Tea Party Movement. This theme leaves me wondering who around here are the true Kool-Aid sippers?

I would think that your standard for success of the Tea Party would be close to the success achieved by the '94 Gingrich "Contract with America" crowd. It seems to me that you and TV were certainly talking that way a year ago...

Now it seems that you and the FOXIES have adjusted your standard of success to more closely reflect reality. If 5 or 6 Republic Senators win those up-for-grabs seats that have no incumbent, and of those 5 or 6 one or two are Tea Party endorsed, well that's a REALLY BIG DEAL? And if the Republics manage to pick up 36 or 37 House Seats and not the 40 they need to take control of the House, then that too is a TRIUMPH for the Tea Partiers?

Is anyone here factoring in the fact that in off year elections, the party not in power always picks up seats? Guess not. Or maybe it's a fact that is one of those "inconvenient truths" that's best ignored...Ya think?

I'm eagerly awaiting your explanationSleep.

Eagle Watch wrote re: AstroTurf or Prairie Fire?
on 07-29-2010 4:44

I was merely passing on something I heard (not on FOX, by the way).  I have no doubt of the Tea Parties effectiveness thus far, as I said, we’ll see if it translates into electoral effectiveness.  There is simply no question that the Tea Parties have changed the way that Democrats do business.  It has almost replaced race as the most popular talking point among liberals.  

I think the Republican win will approach ’94 levels, but that won’t be attributable solely to the Tea Parties … the Democrats have done a lot of self-inflicted damage on their own.  Don’t forget, the Tea Parties arose in frustration to what the Democrats were doing … they didn’t invent anything.  

The pure number of seats isn’t as important a gauge of Tea Party effectiveness as which seats are taken away from Democrats.  That’s the point of this series of blogs.  I have mentioned in these pages many times that off year elections always produce gains for the have-nots.  Guess you don’t remember that.  

Libby wrote re: AstroTurf or Prairie Fire?
on 07-30-2010 3:31

Ahh yes...The "Race" card...That opens up a whole other can of worms that I think would surely end up in a confrontational shouting match between us. I'm sure we have different opinions as to who is trying to use that subject to their advantage and who is using it to try to manipulate public opinion...

You would get comments from me referring to a replay of the "Southern strategy" and really nasty stuff like that. Better we not go there, I think.

Eagle Watch wrote re: AstroTurf or Prairie Fire?
on 07-31-2010 5:43

I have no intention of discussing race here … the point was that by marginalizing the Tea Party, the Democrats have something other than “if you’re against [or for] this proposal [or that], you’re a racist.”  

TVNews wrote re: AstroTurf or Prairie Fire?
on 07-31-2010 10:12

I hope and pray the Democrats continue to write the Tea Party off as a small minority of whack jobs. I cannot think of a better scenario then to have them think that no one but a Tea Party Whack Job could possibly see anything wrong with what they are doing.

Libby wrote re: AstroTurf or Prairie Fire?
on 08-01-2010 3:49

Ok, I get both of your points. Both of you are convinced that the Democrat's--two, and two only--strategies for winning seats in Nov. is destined to fail. EW, you think that they are trying to paint everyone who doesn't agree with the Democratic agenda as a bunch of racists. And TV, you think that they are trying to paint everyone who doesn't agree with them and their agenda as a bunch of Tea Party Whack Jobs.

My question of you both would be once again--What constitutes Democratic failure? EW says they need not lose either House of Congress to have failed. I assume that you agree with him, TV?

I guess your standard of Tea Party--Republican success has now become any-other-than-a-Democratic win in either House of Congress is a victory for the Tea Party Movement / Republicans? Any obstacle you can place in the path of the Obama Admin. and the Democratic majority in either House is sufficient to proclaim Tea Party Victory?

If that is your measure, then I think you are probably looking at at least 6 more years before you will actually achieve your goal of winning over the country with your Tea Party agenda. But I'm sure that neither of you are discouraged in the least with that prospect.... Am I right?

Libby wrote re: AstroTurf or Prairie Fire?
on 08-01-2010 4:06

P.S. I took this quote from you which came from your last comment in your blog "U.S. Senate-First Look".

"the immediate goal is to end one-party rule in Congress; then to retake the White House in 2012".

So...Some more seats gained in the House and a few more seats in the Senate will accomplish this? How?

Eagle Watch wrote re: AstroTurf or Prairie Fire?
on 08-01-2010 4:14

The reason that Democrat incumbents are demonizing their opponents is that’s all they think they have.  Think about it – Republican “public servants” are no different than Democratic ones, and they know it (particularly in the shadow of Charlie Rangel).  To demonize the opposition is what Saul Alinsky advised when the facts of the issue are working against you.  And the facts of the issues are working against Democrats.  Unemployment is higher in the wake of the “stimulus” than it was projected if they did nothing; ObamaCare is unraveling in front of their eyes –costs more, does less and will add to the deficit; President Obama’s promised $24,000 electric car rolled-out last week – the Chevy Volt will start at $40,000 though; his handling of the Gulf Spill has turned the people of Louisiana into George Bush fans; on and on.  If you can’t talk about your accomplishments, demonize your opponent.  Another Alinskyism: any falsehood repeated often enough becomes truth – remember “Bush lied”?  Never mind that every intelligence service in the world was convinced that Hussein had WMD.  All I’m saying here is that yes, there is a history of this on both sides of the aisle, but right here, right now, it’s the Republicans that are talking issues and the Democrats that are demonizing opponents.  And yes, anything that serves to blockade the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda is an American victory.  

Eagle Watch wrote re: AstroTurf or Prairie Fire?
on 08-01-2010 4:25

PS: What gave the Democrats one-party rule is legislative majorities in both houses of Congress and a president of similar persuasion – they didn’t need any Republican input at all.  That’s one-party rule.  They had it, they knew it, and they abused it.  They bludgeoned the people with program after program that they knew the majority of Americans were against.  They tripled Bush’s “unconscionable” debt.  So anything that serves as a speed bump to this reign – more House and Senate seats for example – will force Democrats to listen to the opposition.  We call that democracy.  

TVNews wrote re: AstroTurf or Prairie Fire?
on 08-01-2010 10:27

Libby,

You misunderstand something here. I'm not looking at this like a football game with the team I'm backing. I'm looking at what is best for the future of the country based on history and economics.

I don't really care what party it is as long as they have their eyes on the ball, not some blind feel good self destructive political ideal. Right now that describes the Democrats in understated terms.  

Libby wrote re: AstroTurf or Prairie Fire?
on 08-03-2010 4:26

It seems I've hit a raw nerve and touched off a rant from you, EW. Why else would you go on about every single egregious mis-step that the Administration and the majority-led Democratic Congress has made in your opinion...Again? No matter how many times you repeat and list these "outrageous offenses" [IYO], you haven't and can't convince me of their validity and you know it.

And then this from you: "PS. What gave the Democrats one-party rule is legislative majorities in both houses of Congress and a president of similar persuasion..." Well no kidding? You surely don't think this is news to me?

My point is and has been that if neither House of Congress is won by the minority party, then a few more obstructionist votes aren't going to make that "sea-change" difference that you and the Tea Partiers are highly touting. And my other point has been that it seems that you and the Tea Partiers have lowered your standards as to what you now consider is a "victory". It seems that now your goal is, If we can only make things a little more difficult for the Administration and the Democratic-led Congress then we have succeeded-- Big Time!"

So I offer you congratulations in advance. No need to wait for Nov. 2. The Republics will definitely gain seats in both Houses of congress. And NO ONE disagrees with that. So put those champagne bottles on ice and get ready for the big celebration. LOL.

TV: You could have fooled me. You might not be looking at the upcoming elections as a football game. But it has been my perception of you that you look at every political issue as if it were a sport. It's all about who WINS and who LOSES. In other words, I think you are all about COMPETITION. Whether it's in a sport or a political contest. You just feel that a political contest is a more serious form of competition than a football game.  

Eagle Watch wrote re: AstroTurf or Prairie Fire?
on 08-03-2010 4:48

My PS was in response to your PS.  We can stop the tyranny of one-party rule by removing the legislative majority in either or both Houses of Congress.  It’s not necessary to re-take majorities in order to force Democrats to sell programs on merits rather than just force them through.  And yes, stopping governance in spite of the people is a victory – Big Time!  

Libby wrote re: AstroTurf or Prairie Fire?
on 08-04-2010 4:41

Once, again: Congratulations on your BIG TIME victory.

The PEOPLE will have spoken on Nov.2, and there isn't a shadow of a doubt that they agree with you. I think you can safely count your chickens before they are hatched.

I can't wait to see how things will develop once the PEOPLE have taken back their government. That will be interesting...

Eagle Watch wrote re: AstroTurf or Prairie Fire?
on 08-04-2010 4:47

Thanks.  

Add a Comment

(required)  
(optional)
(required)  
Remember Me?

axcess.me™ is a trademark of Axcess Internet®
The views expressed on personal blogs are the property of the owner and are subject to this disclaimer.