All posts tagged Hone Harawira

Maori Party supports Feed the Kids but doesn’t?

It seems that the Maori Party would vote for Mana’s “Feed the Kids” bill. Felix Marwick has tweeted:

@felixmarwick

Re food in schools. Maori Party says it will support Harawira Bill. I’m unsure how keen they are though.

He links to an audio clip of Tariana Turia who says:

Well I think we need to build whanau capacity to take care of their own. I’m really not a supporter of people outside of the family feeding the children.

That’s a contrast to Hone Harawira’s preference for the state taking responsibility for feeding children in schools. This morning he said on Firstline:

It’s time for the Government to provide for every child.

Mana’s bill was due to have it’s first vote in parliament today and was expected to not have enough votes. Harawira has just had the bill deferred and will be now introduced in July, to give him more time to try and get sufficient support.

In the meantime National is expected to announce more food in school measures in tomorrows budget.

Leave a Comment
by Pete George on May 15, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on May 15, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/05/15/maori-party-supports-feed-the-kids-but-doesnt/

Dunne won’t “Feed the Kids”

Hone Harawira has a Feed the Kids bill:

The Bill aims to set up government funded breakfast and lunch programmes in all decile 1-2 schools.

The Bill is expected to come before Parliament for its first reading on Wednesday 5 June.  So far Labour, Greens, Maori Party, NZ First, and Independent MP Brendan Horan have agreed to support it.  We need one more vote to get it passed and to a select committee for further consideration.

Peter Dunne’s vote would be the one that makes the difference to get this bill passed on the first vote. I asked him if he would support it. Dunne responded:

I fully understand what is intended by this essentially laudable proposals, but I think it is fundamentally flawed for a number of reasons.

Of course, there is a significant number of children who go to school to hungry, because they have not been properly fed at home, and of course poor nutrition has an adverse effect on learning and the subsequent development of the child. That is not the issue – rather, the question is what is the best way of addressing this problem.

At one level, the idea of meals in schools is superficially attractive, but it is essentially palliative, and does little to deal with the circumstances of these children on a long term basis.

Then there is the question of which group of children should we be focusing on. After all, not all children in schools will come from the same socio-economic backgrounds. So, should such a programme be applied universally, which would be as expensive as it would be impractical, or should it be more tightly targeted?

And if so, how? Should, for example, it just apply in low decile schools, even though there will children in those schools from a higher socio-economic status who would not need such a programme?

In that event, what about low-income household children in higher decile schools? Or, to get around income definition problems, should the children of beneficiaries be the only ones eligible?

Whatever way one looks at the issue, the definitional problems are massive, and strongly suggest that such a programme would not only be unsustainable, but also impractical, and in a number of cases potentially inequitable.

That is why I take the view that a much more realistic and workable approach is to target directly, through early identification by community agencies, at risk families and to work with them to help them  get the support they need to properly feed their children.

That support could take any number of forms, depending on individual circumstances, including direct assistance with the provision of food, at one end of the scale, through to such things as life skills advice on cooking, for example, and proper budget advice at the other end of the scale.

Such a targeted approach is far more likely to succeed in the long term, and benefit directly at-risk children, and would have my full support. 

So that looks like a no for the Harawira bill.

Dunne makes a strong argument for a far more targeted approach at the source of the problems (and there are multiple problems that need addressed).

22 Comments
by Pete George on May 7, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on May 7, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/05/07/dunne-wont-feed-the-kids/

Harawira blocks Prosser’s personal statement

Today in Parliament Richard Prosser asked to make a personal statement. This was blocked by Hone Harawira. He later issued an explanatory press release:

Harawira: Richard Prosser personal statement

Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 2:55 pm
Press Release: Mana Party

MEDIA RELEASE

Today I opposed a request from Richard Prosser to make a personal statement to the house. I did so because if he has an apology to make for his offensive remarks to the Muslim community, then he can make his way to the nearest mosque and ask forgiveness there.

I do not accept that he should be able to make such remarks and then simply wash away his venom via an unchallenged explanation in the house.

Hone Harawira
MANA leader and MP for Tai Tokerau

This is a remarkably hypocritical statement from Harawira, he hasn’t excelled in washing away venom of his own.

And Prosser’s comments reflected on the whole of Parliament, especialy as reported internationally. Prosser owes many people a proper apology, including all MPs, and it would seem appropriate to do this in the House.

This looks like attention seeking grandstanding by Harawira.

by Pete George on February 13, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged ,

Posted by Pete George on February 13, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/02/13/harawira-blocks-prossers-personal-statement/

Other parties on Prosser

David Shearer:

Jessica Mutch TVNZ ‏@MutchJessica

David Shearer says Richard Prosser’s comments were “offensive and completely inappropriate” but wouldn’t say if he would stand him down.

This makes a coalition deal between Labour and NZ First even harder, and the Greens will be even less keen than before in being involved.

Hone Harawira:

Jessica Mutch TVNZ ‏@MutchJessica

Hone Harawira says Richard Prosser’s comments are “dumb”, “racist” and he has a “tiny little mind”.

And (with a bit of irony):

Mana Party leader Hone Harawira said Mr Prosser’s comments were racist, and without basis in fact.

“It’s kinda like saying that no 19- to 35-year-old white guys should be allowed to go anywhere because they cause so many wars around the world.

Asked whether the NZ First MP should have kept his comments to himself, Mr Harawira said: “It’s best that they’re actually expressed openly because when people hold views as extreme as that, it’s best that we hear them.”

John Key:

 Prime Minister John Key said Mr Prosser’s comments were “an example of the depth of thinking coming out of New Zealand First”.

“It’s an appalling thing to say. It was premeditated. It was written in an opinion piece. It’s clearly what New Zealand First think of other New Zealanders but it’s a bit buffoonish if you ask me.”

John Banks…

…said the comments were “crazy” and “bizarre”.

“What can you say? I believe in good in all people, all races, all people.”

Asked whether there was a place for such extreme views in Parliament, Mr Banks said: “That is going to be tested by this member.”

Judith Collins:

 Katie Bradford-Crozi ‏@katieabradford

Ethnic Affairs Minister Judith Collins says Prosser’s anti-Muslim rant is “embarrassing” for New Zealand

by Pete George on February 12, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , ,

Posted by Pete George on February 12, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/02/12/other-parties-on-prosser/

Four year term supported by most party leaders

At Waitangi today John Key floated the idea of a four year term. It’s obviously not new but it gave media the opportunity to check it out with other parties in attendance.

Key pushes for four-year terms

The Prime Minister is using his spotlight at Waitangi to push the idea of a fixed four-year term for the Government, and he’s got support from his political opponents.

The crowds at Waitangi are a good sounding board for politicians, so John Key’s using the event to push the boat out on this pet project of his – extending the Government’s reign to four years, with a fixed date.

“I think it makes a lot more sense to know when the date is and it makes a lot more sense to have it for four years,” he says.

But Mr Key would need either 75 percent support from MPs or the majority in a referendum.

Support from MPs would be easiest.

Opposition leader David Shearer says he agrees with the idea.

“In many ways it’s a very short period of time,” he says. “It’s too long in opposition I have to say!”

Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples seems in favour.

“That’s probably a good idea too. You just seem to get started and bang, it’s election time,” he says.

And Greens co-leader Metiria Turei says she thinks the public would support the move.

“Most of the public agree it’s better for governments to have more time to implement policy rather than going from election to election.”

I don’t think Turei is correct on public agreement unless she knows something that’s not public knowledge. In 1990 69% opted to stick with three years.

Peter Dunne is definitely in favour, I asked him and he replied:

Yes, I do and the fixed Election Day

If their parties followed their lead that’s well over 75% (National plus Labour would be enough).

3News also asked Hone Harawira:

However Mana leader Hone Harawira isn’t convinced.

“As long as I’m not in Government I think it’s a ratshit idea,” he says.

That just leaves Winston and NZ First, but the numbers look favourable for four years.

But it looks like if this went to parliament it would stand a good chance of succeeding.

I also agree, three years seems too short for a Government. The first year is generally settling in and getting up to speed on policies and portfolios, and gathering information. Year two is cram time for implementing as much as possible. And year three is dominated by the election. A second middle year would make a big difference.

A common preference amongst the public is that the shorter the better in case the don’t like who is in Government. But it’s rare to have a one term government.

It can be presumed that a longer term would increase the chance of being rejected at the first re-election attempt, so four years would be shorter than six (two terms).

And it would be much harder to stay for a third term, so eight years is shorter than nine.

How likely and how soon? From NZ Herald’s Leaders support four year term:

The review began in 2010 and is being led by Deputy Prime Minister Bill English and Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples who have appointed an advisory panel to consider it. However, there is no report date, and Mr English told iwi leaders at Waitangi that “it will take as long as it takes”.

He said it would be some time before any recommendations were made – and even then the Government might not act on them if it could not secure widespread agreement.

Don’t hold your breath.

 

by Pete George on February 6, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on February 6, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/02/06/four-year-term/

“Maori Party…dead or dying”

Interesting comments by ‘xtasy’ at The Standard on the Maori and Mana parties and their futures.

The Maori Party generally more or less appears to be a “dead” or “dying” party now.

Founded initially upon Tariana Turia leaving Labour, due to issues with their foreshore and seabed legislation, Sharples and others joined her to establish a party to seek redress from what Labour introduced into law, and a kind of “movement” was started.

The downfall of the Maori Party clearly started by going into a support agreement with a National led government, and to somehow at least passively “agree” to a range of controversial policies, naturally also to amend the law affecting foreshore and seabed matters.

But Maori Party members – repeatedly told by their elected MPs, that the agreement with Key and his National led government is good, necessary and will bring more benefits than being in opposition, have increasingly felt hood-winked.

Harawira brought on the challenges that arose through working with National and its other support parties. An internal rift developed, and Harawira left (or was forced to leave), to form Mana.

Mana is supposed to be a new, inclusive “Left Party”, but most know, it is primarily led and organised by and through Harawira and his closest supporters. Yet he always wishes to emphasize, that Mana stands for the rights of Mana PLUS others, e.g. Pakeha, negatively affected by bad right wing policies.

Maori Party support has dropped and they will struggle to get voted back into Parliament, since Tariana has announced her retreat. Sharples is just too much of an old power loving hanger-on now, as one must seriously question his ability to influence the decisions of the government he supports, and is member of as a Minister. Flavell made a challenge, but Maori Party leaders are too scared now to see it through.

Harawira made comments on National Radio this morning, basically admitting, that Mana is in a way the other Maori Party. He talked about working together, some form of alliance, or something in that direction. He also presented his interest as a “leader” for Maori interests.

There was suddenly not much talk about inclusiveness and Mana being more than just an “alternative Maori Party”.

Looking up their website tells you enough, how it is run and what the priority political emphasis and support base is:
http://mana.net.nz/
http://mana.net.nz/2013/01/is-mana-maori-a-possibility/
http://mana.net.nz/kaupapa-vision/

It appears to be an “inclusive” party so far, through some images and presentation, but when looking closer, it becomes clearer to me, that Mana is primarily a party established by Harawira as “independent” MP for Tai Tokerau, who appears to have seen a need to try and boost membership and support by allowing in Minto, Bradford and a few others, to establish a wider set of leading members. Yet in polls it still struggles to get above the 1 per cent rate.

See also this newspaper article from the Northern Advocate:
http://www.northernadvocate.co.nz/news/harawira-id-lead-maori-mana-party/1724449/

So I feel, Harawira now has to come CLEAN, on what is ultimate mission is, where he stands, whether he really wants to be primarily a Maori leader, or to keep working on a more inclusive leftist party.

My suspicions are, he wants to be the former, as that is what he feels more passionate about.

Hence again, my conclusion is that not just is Labour in a situation where it is struggling to find a “new way” as a “left” or at least “left of centre” party, Mana is also about to fall to pieces, given Harawira’s newly revived true aspirations.

Maori Party will soon be “dead”, I would expect, at least no more than a party in a similar situation as ACT is in now.

From The Standard post Maori Party in terminal decline

by Pete George on January 24, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on January 24, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/01/24/maori-party-dead-or-dying/

Maori Mana merge?

An interesting tweet:

Mihingarangi Forbes ‏@Mihi_Forbes
Is there a Mana-Maori Party merger in the wind? Both Harawira and Sharples say it’s a possibility

The Maori Party are finding survival a challenge and their leadership transition is very muddled. Voter support for a Maori dedicated party is diminishing.

Harawira will have discovered that running a one MP party is very hard work and when on the fringe of the political spectrum prospects of gaining significant political power are very limited.

So a re-unification of Harawira and the Maori Party makes some sense.

But it complicates the leadership situation. Harawira would be likely to want to score some sort of leadership role as part of a merger deal, but Pita Sharples seems reluctant to let go and Te Ururoa Flavell seems anxious to further his political ambitions.

With Tariana Turia’s planned retirement that would leave a merge party very male dominant.

 

by Pete George on January 22, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on January 22, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/01/22/maori-mana-merge/

On Labour-Greens and Mana in coalition

A comment on coalition options from Populuxe1 at The Standard:

I am yet to be convinced that a Labour-Greens coalition would be anything but dysfunctional, and there is no way in hell that Labour will even entertain the idea of coalition, or even a ten foot barge pole, with Mana. Mana is political poison – it will only ever be a cross-bench party, and not a long-lasting one.

The problem with Mana is this: It’s an unstable Frankenstein’s monster sewn together for convenience from Maori activists alienated by the Maori Party, and old skool trade union socialists. Tino rangatiratanga is at the most basic level incompatible with State ownership and citizen equality. Eventually it will fall apart.

Labour and the Greens are shambling centre-wards and have little rapport with people like Minto and Bradford, and every time Harawira opens his mouth he offends around 73% of the population. I’d almost be willing to bet money it won’t happen.

Hone Harawira and Mana would be very difficult coalition partners, but if they remain a one MP party the odds are they won’t be necessary to make up the numbers for a centre and left coalition.

It will be difficult enough for Labour and Greens to work together in coalition, especially if the junior partner is led by a determined and focussed leader alongside a fuzzy uncertain Labour leader.

More comment (from ‘fatty’):

“The problem with Mana is this: It’s an unstable Frankenstein’s monster sewn together for convenience from Maori activists alienated by the Maori Party, and old skool trade union socialists. Tino rangatiratanga is at the most basic level incompatible with State ownership and citizen equality.”

I’ve heard many political scientists say that…but its because Mana doesn’t subscribe to classic political ideological paradigms. From what I can see, their policies are far more coherent than the ‘third way’ shambles that Nationa/Labour have delivered us since the 80s. The neo-tribalism we have thanks to the Pakeha definition of biculturalism is not normal, nor should it be accepted.

I think many will question the coherence of Mana and Harawira, and how realistic and practical Maori orientated socialism would work even within the tribalism of Maoridom.

Mana want reduced economic inequality, equity, and cultural equality…its not that hard to get your head around.

The ideals aren’t hard to get your head around, but how to achieve them fairly are much more difficult nuts to crack.

Also, this ‘Frankenstein’s monster sewn together for convenience’ is an illusion perpetrated by right wing bloggers and an ignorant media. Sue Bradford, John Minto, and Matt McCarten are all class focused but have a long history of activism for Maori rights. Hone is Maori focused, but has also focused on economic inequality.

I think there will be far more than “right wing bloggers and an ignorant media” who would view a Harawira/Bradford/Minto/McCarten deciding vote bloc in a coalition with some concern.

by Pete George on October 1, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on October 1, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/10/01/on-labour-greens-and-mana-in-coalition/

Harawira has avoided responsibility

Hone Harawira has ducked and dived and denied after his ‘house nigger’ comment, and hasn’t had the guts to take responsibility for making them. His original comments were:

Time John Key realised a few home truths like (1) he can tell his little house niggers what to do, but (2) the rest of us don’t give a shit for him or his opinions!

It was widely assumed he was referring to Maori Party MPs because at about the same time he made comments directly linking them…

Notice how John Key says none of his Maori MPs are allowed to go to the National Maori Hui on Water … and two minutes later Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples say that they’re not going. Not hard to see who’s the REAL leader of the Maori Party!

And…

What’s the bet that Tari and Pete cop so much flak from Maori for saying that they’re not going to the hui on water – that they find some reason to change their mind and say they’re gonna go now (or send Te Ururoa). Knowing how the Maori Party works, they’ll have to clear it with John Key first though …

He was very clear – in his own typed words – about linking Maori Party MPs to his attack. And since then he has denied this. He has said he was referring to. He claimed he meant he was referring to National’s Maori MPs. From Stuff:

“What’s that got to do with Tari and Pete?”

He said he was referring to National’s own Maori MPs; such as Paula Bennett, Tau Henare, Simon Bridges, Hekia Parata.

“You’ve got to be careful about trying to draw dots here… I made a very clear statement about John Key and the way that he treats his MPs.”

Felix Marwick’s interview with Harawira:

Marwick: Why did you choose the language that you did, I mean, I guess if you called them lapdogs which you’ve done in the past, I guess people would have understood.

Harawira: Be very careful here, I haven’t called anybody, who have I called anybody anything?

Marwick: You’ve called people house niggers on your Facebook page.

Harawira: Would you like to come to the quote there Felix, read it out, read it out.

Marwick: I’ll just bring it up…

Harawira: Sure, absolutely, I think the media needs to be really bloody clear here…

Marwick: Ok, I’ll read it back to you, and you can tell me the contect that it was in…

Harawira: Go on then, go on then…

Marwick: Where are we, has it been deleted?

Harawira: I didn’t delete it…

Marwick: Ah, it was there this morning, I’ll take it from the copy that we took this morning, where you said “Mr Key can tell his little house niggers what to do, but the rest of us don’t give a shit for his opinion”. Who were you referring to when you used the phrase ‘little house niggers”?

Harawira: Hang on, hang on, hang on, no, no, no, no, no, hang on, hang on hang on. You can’t make the assumption, name people that you think I’m talking about, I’m not about to play that game, this is a challenge to John Key, it’s time John Key realised a few home truths like (1) he can tell his little house niggers what to do, but (2) the rest of us don’t give a shit for him or his opinions, now anybody’s getting up in a big fuss and turning this into Hone’s accused so and so, and so and so, and so and so of being a house nigger.

Well the fact is I haven’t. I’ve accused John Key of treating people that way, and I don’t think, I don’t think that he should.

Marwick: How did you expect that comment to be interpreted then?

Harawira: Well I hope he gets pissed off about it, I hope that his Maori MPs don’t listen to him, and I hope they come to the hui, it’s a national hui for Maori on water, and they should come.

But Harawira kept linking the whole thing to Maori Party MPs, for example from 3 News:

“I’m glad that this has actually forced Pita to say he’s going to come, I’ll enjoy him being there. I’ll just say to Turi I never accused her of being that, and I don’t think she should read into it anymore then what was actually in the email.”

Harawira’s “little house niggers” comment was clearly associated with “Not hard to see who’s the REAL leader of the Maori Party!” and “Knowing how the Maori Party works, they’ll have to clear it with John Key first though”.

He knew it wouldn’t change John Key’s mind on anything – in fact this was timed when John Key was out of the country and out of the discussion.

Knowing how Harawira works this was a clear provocation directed at Sharples and Turia with the aim of shaming them into attending the water hui, because he thought they should attend.

Sharples has now said he will attend the hui, but the credibility of the hui has taken a battering.

And Harawira has been blatantly dishonest about his implications and intent.

Key did eventually get a chance to comment from Vladivostock:

“I know it’s Hone Harawira being Hone Harawira, but frankly I think he owes them an apology,” he says.

If Harawira was honourable he would apologise, but don’t expect it. He doesn’t have the guts to be up front about what he does,

And he’s likely to avoid responsibility for his abuse. Again. That’s Hone Harawira being Hone Harawira.

Simon Bardwell at TVNZ sums it up:

Harawira says he’s trying to make the point that Key acts towards his Maori MPs like a Southern plantation owner in the 1950s.

But the crucial word in that sentence is “like”. When you leave that word out, as Harawira did in his first post, you leave yourself wide open to the accusation that you used the term yourself.

Of course, just drawing such comparisons is odious enough to many people.

How strange to see the normally unrepentant MP looking for a get-out-clause to try and explain himself away.

That’s the sort of behaviour Harawira normally despises in other politicians.

It’s odd that Harawira would try and have us believe his explanation rather than either apologise, or even stand by his original comments – obnoxious as many people see them.

Race Relations Conciliator Joris de Bres called the post “dumb”. Many would agree.

But it’s his explanation afterwards that many will see as an insult – an insult to the intelligence.

 

by Pete George on September 9, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Issues
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on September 9, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/09/09/harawira-has-avoided-responsibility/

The Mana plantation owner

There’s quite a bit more to what Hone Harawira has said than a bit of abuse. From a Newstalk ZB interview: Harawira on his ‘house n****r’ comments

Marwick: Now the attendance or non-attendance of both National Party Maori MPs and the Maori Party MPs at the hui organised by King Tuheitia seems to have ruffled your feathers somewhat. What is your objection to them not attending?

Harawira: No, actually I’m not objecting to them not attending, I’m objecting to the fact that John Key is telling them they can’t.

The fact of the matter is, people are jumping up and down about a phrase I used, right, but if people want me to stop using terms from Alabama in the 1950s then they should tell the Prime Minister to stop acting like a plantation owner from Alabama in the 1950s.

There’s a number of Maori MPs in his party, two of whom are high ranking ministers, they have their own mana, and they have their own standing in Maori society, and he should show them the respect that they deserve and allow them to make their own decision as to whether or not they’ll attend the national hui on water.

Marwick:: Do you think it was right to use such a pejorative term thought, because I know if I used it people would probably thump me and they’d be right to do so.

Harawira: Ah look Felix, you have to live with the things you say and I’m comfortable with the things I say.

My comment was about how the way in which the Prime Minister showed an appalling lack of understanding of the mana that his Maori MPs have. It’s an insult to them, (they should) make up their own mind.

What’s the point of having ministers that you want to rank highly in your cabinet, if you’re going to do all their thinking for them, particularly Maori ones.

And understand this, they’re not being invited as National Party MPs, they’re not being invited as Cabinet Ministers. It’s a national hui on water for Maori. It’s not an Iwi Leaders hui, it’s not a claimants hui, it’s not a Maori Council hui. It’s an open hui for Maori. They are Maori. They should come.

Marwick: Why should they?

Harawira: Because the issues that are going to be discussed there will probably lead to some of the most important decisions that Maoridom will make in my lifetime, and your lifetime for that matter. That’s why. It is that important.

Water, and the status of water to Maori and to the nation are at stake here, and it’s important that everybody’s point of view is heard. They bring a different point of view to the table, like everybody else. They should come, and John Key should not be telling them not to.

Marwick: What impact then do you think this hui could have on government policy, given the position that the Government’s already put out there?

Harawira: I’m really not sure. All I want to see is that Maori see water as an important issue, to make a decision on, that they set a timeframe on which that decision can be made with as wide a participation as possible from Maori people, and that they not be locked into a timeframe gerrymandered by the Prime Minister to facilitate the sale of assets that most New Zealanders are opposed to.

Aside from important issues like:

  • what 1950′s Alabama has got to do with slavery or New Zealand?
  • why “some of the most important decisions that Maoridom will make in my lifetime” will come from a hui organised at very short notice
  • if water is such an important issue for the country why is the hui so maori dominated
  • on what basis Harawira speaks for the hui
  • how representative of Maori as a whole the hui will be
  • how representative of the whole country the hui will be

…there’s a key point to take from this.

Harawira’s main objection regarding the National Party Maori MPs seems to be that “the fact that John Key is telling them they can’t“.

So he says “They should come, and John Key should not be telling them not to.“

As Harawira says, “they have their own mana“. Maybe they can decide for themselves what they do and who they listen to. Why should National Party MPs take their orders from the Mana plantation owner?

by Pete George on September 8, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Issues, Politics
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on September 8, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/09/08/the-mana-plantation-owner/

« Older Posts
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 76 other followers