Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings Sunday, Jul 12 2009 

Senator David Vitter (R, LA) (202) 224-4623
516 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Senator Mary Landrieu (D, LA) (202)224-5824
328 Hart Senate Building
Washington, DC 20510

RE: Sonya Sotomayor Senate Confirmation Hearings


To date I have written you on three separate occasions regarding the nomination of Sonya Sotomayor as Supreme Court Justice. And to date, I have yet to receive any sort of response as to your position on the matter. Please write today, and confirm your own opposition to this entire proceeding.

There really is no room for discussion on the matter, and to imply otherwise would be quite literally: insanity.

Albert Einstein is attributed with having said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Over and over again, Sonya Sotomayor has proven herself; she has proven herself to be unqualified for this nomination. Her statements are not isolated blurbs in passing, nor are her positions limited to theoretical ramblings. Her actions and judgments are testimonials to all that she says. For a fairly lengthy list of her positions in her own words, please view:

I have spoken about your oath in the past Senators. Here is a reminder of your duty, “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.” This is not only your oath, it has been the oath of your predecessors dating back to 1864 and the Constitution itself says that you, “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution”.

“The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society’s need for order and the individual’s right to freedom. To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. “

The Supreme Court goes on to describe its own role in that system of checks and balances by saying, “The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’ John Jay, the first Chief Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court’s history by declining to advise President George Washington on the constitutional implications of a proposed foreign policy decision. The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is limited only to deciding specific cases.”

  • What does Sotomayor have to say on the matter? “All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is — Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t ‘make law,’ I know.” Source: Duke University panel discussion held in February 2005

“’EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW’These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.”

  • Sotomayor says, “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” Source: Symposium sponsored by Berkley Law Journal, 2001.

We are , “A government of laws not men.” (Source: Letters of Novanglus, No. 7, [6 March 1775] Papers of John Adams, 2:314 The phrase seems to originate with James Harrington, Politicaster, 1659) In expounding on the Rule of Law, Black’s Law Dictionary explains that, “… sometimes called ‘the supremacy of law’, (it) provides that decisions should be made by the application of known principles or laws without the intervention of discretion in their application.”

  • “The aspiration to impartiality is just that—it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.” Sonya Sotomayor. Source: Symposium sponsored by Berkley Law Journal, 2001.

Sonya Sotomayor herself removes all need for discussion. Sonya Sotomayor is purely, and simply, not a qualified nominee to the position of Supreme Court Justice. To even allow the confirmation hearings to move forward is irresponsible at best, and is a serious breach of your oath of office.

Chris Beall
Baton Rouge, LA

Media, US Congressman Bill Cassidy (R, 6th Dist. LA) 202-225-3901

United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary
Leahy, Patrick J. (D, VT) , (202) 224-4242
Kohl, Herb (D, WI), (202) 224-5653
Feinstein, Dianne (D, CA), (202) 224-3841
Feingold, Russell D. (D, WI), (202) 224-5323
Schumer, Charles E. (D, NY), (202) 224-6542
Durbin, Richard J. (D, IL), (202) 224-2152
Cardin, Benjamin L. (D, MD), (202) 224-4524
Whitehouse, Sheldon (D, RI), (202) 224-2921
Wyden, Ron (D, OR), (202) 224-5244
Klobuchar, Amy (D, MN), (202) 224-3244
Kaufman, Edward E. (D, DE), (202) 224-5042
Specter, Arlen (D, PA), (202) 224-4254
Sessions, Jeff (R, AL), (202) 224-4124
Hatch, Orrin G. (R, UT), (202) 224-5251
Grassley, Chuck (R, IA), (202) 224-3744
Kyl, Jon (R, AZ), (202) 224-4521
Graham, Lindsey (R, SC), (202) 224-5972
Cornyn, John (R, TX), (202) 224-2934
Coburn, Tom (R, OK), (202) 224-5754


Town Hall Meeting on Health Care Monday, Jul 6 2009 

The Honorable Bill Cassidy (R, LA. 6th District) 202.225.3901
506 Cannon Hob
Washington DC 20515

Re: June 30, 2009 Town hall Meeting on Health Care
Subject: Thanks & Position

Representative Cassidy:

Thank you for hosting the “town hall” style meeting on June 30, 2009 at Our Lady of the Lake Hospital in Baton Rouge to discuss the nationalization of health care, and the likely ramifications of such a measure.

I learned of more than a few reasons to oppose any such legislation:

  • In the private model, the United States is the world leader in medical research and technology (backed up with the clout of institutions such as Johns Hopkins, National Jewish, MD Anderson, and the Mayo Clinic to name just a few).
  • That a great many small business owners very well may be forced out of business as an unintended consequence of implementation a national plan.
  • CBO estimates of a deficit increase of over ONE TRILLION dollars in the next 10 years (Senator Kennedy’s website says the CBO has come up with a new number of 600 billion over the course of the 10 year span, though I have yet to confirm that with anything from the CBO directly – and even if I had, in my mind that value is also grossly unacceptable).

In complete honesty though Congressman? The most valid reason that I can think of to stand in opposition to the nationalization of our health care system is that it further serves to erode the founding principles upon which this countries cornerstones were carved from. It further removes choice from the People, and places it firmly in the ever increasing strength and might of our federal government.

Every single sentence our founding fathers wrote; every document they crafted; everything that they did was to insure We the People would have control of our own destiny, and that We could wield government as We saw fit. These founding principles…what so many have given their lives for so freely…these ideals are being eroded before Our very eyes. This is what you are fighting for Congressman. You are, in a very real way, fighting for Our very freedom.

I urge you to stand strong & remain vigilant at all times, and to remember what is that you are truly there for sir; to give the People a voice, and the ability to make choices on their own – not to give the government the authority to decide what is in Our best interest.

Thank you for your service Congressman.

Chris Beall
Baton Rouge, LA

Enclosures: CBO Estimate
( ),
Draft Senate Healthcare Reform Bill
( )

Cc: Senator David Vitter (R, LA) 202.224.4623, Senator Mary Landrieu (D, LA) 202.224.5824

Senate Health, Labor, Education, and Pensions Committee
(committee general mailbox: )
Edward Kennedy (MA)
Christopher Dodd (CT)
Tom Harkin (IA)
Barbara A. Mikulski (MD)
Jeff Bingaman (NM)
Patty Murray (WA)
Jack Reed (RI)
Bernard Sanders (I) (VT)
Sherrod Brown (OH)
Robert P. Casey, Jr. (PA)
Kay Hagan (NC)
Jeff Merkley (OR)
Michael B. Enzi (WY)
Judd Gregg (NH)
Lamar Alexander (TN)
Richard Burr (NC)
Johnny Isakson (GA)
John McCain (AZ)
Orrin G. Hatch (UT)
Lisa Murkowski (AK)
Tom Coburn, M.D. (OK)
Pat Roberts (KS)

Healthcare Reform Sunday, Jul 5 2009 

The above hyperlink is to a site that is looking for positive feedback on the President’s plans to nationalize healthcare. And it is a very one sided thing. If you look around that site in general, there is practically no way to voice your opposition – though there are a number of different ways to voice your support. This particular link is the only way that I have found where you can actually utilize the First Amendment & say what you think. I would urge you all to go there and make your voice heard. Additionally, write to your Senators and your Representatives…as well as the Senate Committee on Health, Labor & Pensions – more commonly known as “H.E.L.P.” Their email address is: This is the committee that will consider any legislation on the issue).

Here is what I told them yesterday:

Yes, our country is in dire need of healthcare reform, but not the type of reform that further inserts government into our lives. There has not been a single government solution for broad social dilemmas that has yet to work out (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, etc…) The answer to our problems today is most assuredly not an increased measure of government control.
If you want to do your jobs on Capitol Hill, and act in support of an empowered People, and a limited government as envisioned by free Americans throughout our history – you can work on Tort reform (a legal problem that is going to take a legal solution – this should be right up your alley). Of its own accord it would serve to substantially lower physicians malpractice costs, and thereby significantly reduce the burden on the end recipients. Additionally – fix the programs already in existence, and stop the rampant fraud…or remove them altogether. This would also go a very long way in solving the problems before Us.  

And stop citing twisted and outright bogus statistics.. 47 million uninsured? That is a very misleading number..

The real number is more likely somewhere in the range of 11 million, depending upon how you interpret the data – Judge for yourself though, I have attached the source data below from the US Census Bureau. And while that is most certainly an issue that has got to be dealt with, it is a far cry from what you regularly espouse as fact.   

Here are two separate interpretations of the data above.

As a veteran of a foreign war, I have seen firsthand what a national system can be (the VA is far from efficient)… as an American, I have watched Canadians and Brits flock to our soil to partake in OUR system. And as an informed citizen, I have read about the countless times the rest of the world has turned to us, the United States of America, for knowledge as we ARE the leaders in all medical fields.
And to those that would cry out that we are the only civilized country that does not have a nationalized health plan…  One final thought.. the oath of office is very simple for both the executive, and the legislative branches…it mostly just talks about the protection and defense of our Constitution (which in turn protects We the People)… and our Constitution is a document meant to limit government and empower the People..

Is this plan in keeping with those principles? No…the “moral imperative” here is to stop the madness, and return the true leaders of this country to power: the People.

Since when do we try to conform to other platforms? From our very inception, we Americans have always broken away from the pack… thought.. and acted.. INDEPENDENTLY.. that is perhaps one of the greatest characteristics of what it means to BE American; perhaps something to bear in mind as we celebrate this INDEPENDENCE DAY. We have always been the trend-SETTERS…that very trait has helped define the greatness of this nation!

Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing Record Act of 2009 Friday, Jul 3 2009 

The Honorable Bill Cassidy (R, LA. 6th District) 202.225.3901
506 Cannon Hob
Washington DC 20515
Representative Cassidy:

On January 6, 2009 Congressman Bobby L. Rush (D, IL. 202.225.4372 ) introduced H.R. 45, “Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Sale Record Act of 2009” (no cosponsor) for consideration. On February 9, 2009 this proposed legislation was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, where it resides today.

In brief I am writing to voice my opposition to this bill. It is an unwarranted and blatant attack on not only our individual second amendment rights, but our fourth amendment rights as well. Additionally, this legislation would set incredibly dangerous precedent on what would amount to a total removal of State’s rights in favor of federal regulation as pertaining to individual citizens and residents.

The entire bill is ludicrous and irreparably flawed if one attempts to apply any logic, reason, and fact; but I will give two brief examples:
Page 4, lines 13 – 16 under “Purposes”, the bill states, “to protect the public against unreasonable risk of injury and death associated with the unrecorded sale or transfer of qualifying firearms to criminals and youth…”, and the way the document is crafted, this reads as the main objective.
  • The process for legal transfer already involves federal approval on all transfer of ownership for firearms. As part that transfer, the federal form filled out is utilized to conduct an immediate background check of the applicant. Among those qalready not qualified to complete the transaction include (but are not limited to): criminals and youth.
Page 3, lines 18 – 23 under “Findings”, the bill states, “on the afternoon of May 10, 2007, Blair Holt, a junior at Julian High School in Chicago, was killed on a public bus riding home from school when he used his body to shield a girl who was in the line of fire after a young man boarded the bus and started shooting.”
  • First of all the death of Blair Holt was tragic and needless, and it was purely criminal in every way imaginable. Blair Holt’s final actions showed him to be a young man of unusual character & valor, and of course that only serves to magnify the already heinous nature of the crime.
  • The killer: Michael Pace, was convicted of 1st degree murder and will be serving between 50 years to life in prison.

Per the US Department of Justice report number NCJ189369, in 80% of crime involving firearms, the firearm is not legally transferred.

The answer to criminal behavior is not to remove the rights of law abiding citizens, and never has been. As a matter of fact, there is a very legitimate position that states that were more law abiding citizens to utilize their second amendment rights responsibly there were be even less criminal behavior. To use a rather dramatic example, when is the last time you have heard of a gun store being robbed during business hours? I tied to “google” that and only came up with “attempted robberies” (example: ).

And finally, as for that very small minority that would participate in criminal behavior with a legally obtained firearm? The laws in place currently are more than sufficient to deal with those individuals, and to hold them liable for their own actions. Further legislation of any kind would at best be redundant, and at worst could be detrimental. We must shift our focus back to one of personal responsibility and hold individuals accountable for their own actions, not expecting the government to regulate every waking move of the citizenry, nor should the law abiding people be stripped of their liberty or freedom as a consequence of criminal behavior present in society.

The automatic reaction that legislation can solve a problem is a seriously flawed trend in our country today that has got to be dealt with. Outside of our founding documents, and major constitutional amendments, you can point to no time in our past to a single instance where additional legislation has gotten our country out of a difficult situation. Please bear that in mind when you consider any legislative action.

In closing Congressman, I know that you are in fact a strong proponent of our second amendment rights, but here you need to make it a point to ensure that this bill not only not make it to the House floor, but that it is retired permanently with no hope of revival or reincarnation.

Chris Beall
Baton Rouge, LA

Cc: Senator David Vitter (R, LA) 202.224.4623, Senator Mary Landrieu (D, LA) 202.224.5824,

House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
Bobby Scott (D, VA). 202.225.8351
Louie Gohmert (R, TX) 202.225.3035
Pedro Pierluisi (D, PR) 202.225.2615
Ted Poe (R, TX) 202.225.6565
Jerrold Nadler (D, NY) 202.225.5635
Bob Goodlatte (R, VA) 202.225.5431
Zoe Lofgren (D, CA) 202.225.3072
Dan Lungren (R, CA) 202.225.5716
Sheila Jackson Lee (D, TX) 202.225.3816
J. Randy Forbes (R, VA) 202.225.6365
Thomas J. Rooney (R, FL) 202.225.5792
Maxine Waters (D, CA) 202.225.2201
Steve Cohen (D, TN) 202.225.3265
Anthony Weiner (D, NY) 202.225.6616
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D, FL) 202.225.7931
Mike Quigley (D, IL) 202.225.4061

RE: H.R. 45, Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009
Subject: Opposition

American Clean Energy & Security Act 2009 Saturday, Jun 27 2009 

The final tally for the American Clean Energy & Security Act 2009 (aka “cap and trade” bill)? 219 ayes / 212 nos – all it would have taken to vote down was FOUR votes. Here is the final roll call: Please contact your Congressperson and let them know how you feel about their vote on the matter (good or bad).

It is not over yet though. The bill still has to clear the Senate, so please.. Call. Write. Email. Blog. Send smoke signals if you need to…but let your Senator know that you OPPOSE THIS LEGISLATION.

What would final passage of this measure mean? Let Obama tell you himself:

In his own words, Obama says utility costs will, “skyrocket”…as he is “capping greenhouse gasses”, and that coal, natural gas, and other energy plants operational costs would soar, and then, “pass on those costs to the consumer”. And this is not a trickledown effect mind you. You.. the consumer.. will feel the full brunt of this in almost every single fathomable arena.

If this bill passes the Senate then it will be the largest single tax increase in American history. Your food cost is going to also skyrocket. Domestic textiles will go through the roof.. though, the few that are here won’t be here for long… so not to worry. But then there will be massive surcharges on the importation, as the tax on the fuel the tankers utilize to ….Speaking of…. Your travel costs? Yep. You can no longer afford to travel under this new legislation.

It puts the governments tentacles in still other new and exciting areas of private industry. Areas you don’t want it…. or maybe you do?

This bill is over 1200 pages long. There was a 300 page amendment submitted at 3am the night before the House vote. This is legislation that can ostensibly alter the very fabric of this country…this can shake the bedrock of America. Even if you agreed with everything you know about this bill already…would you really want your Representative voting for something they have not read? Would you vote “yes” on something you have not read? Do you trust anyone that much?

Cap and Trade Bill Friday, Jun 26 2009 

Waxman-Markey Global Warming Bill: Economic Impact by Congressional District

by Karen Campbell, Ph.D. and David Kreutzer, Ph.D.

WebMemo #2504

It has become quite clear over the past several months that placing a cap on carbon emission–via rationing, taxing, and eliminating consumer choice–will have major implications for American families and the economy.

An analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill (as reported out of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce) by The Heritage Foundation found that unemployment will increase by nearly 2 million in 2012, the first year of the program, and reach nearly 2.5 million in 2035, the last year of the analysis. Total GDP loss by 2035 would be $9.4 trillion. The national debt would balloon as the economy slowed, saddling a family of four with $114,915 of additional national debt. Families would also suffer, as the bill would slap the equivalent of a $4,609 tax on a family of four by 2035.[1]

Heritage is not alone in its assessment. The National Black Chamber of Commerce[2] and the Brookings Institution[3] also project huge job losses. Proponents of a national energy tax will quickly point to a recent Congressional Budget Office memo [4] and nd Environmental Protection Agency[5] analysis suggesting low per family costs. Those estimates are grossly inaccurate, as both the CBO memo and the EPA’s analysis contain flaws too serious for use as measures of the economic impact of the Waxman-Markey bill.

While national numbers are startling, many Members of Congress may be tempted to assume that their congressional districts will not be affected because they “cut a deal” or they have an incomplete view of how the American economy functions. Thus, it is crucially important that the Members making decisions, and the people affected by those decisions, understand how their congressional districts will be impacted by Waxman-Markey, or any type of national energy tax.

The table below lays out six congressional district specific data points:

  1. Gross State Product Loss in 2012: This number is the amount of economic destruction that will occur in that district in the first year of the cap-and-trade regime.
  2. Average Gross State Product Loss, 2012-2035: Same as above, only it is the average economic destruction in the district for the bill’s first 24 years.
  3. Personal Income Loss in 2012: This number represents the reduction in consumer spending power in a district in the first year of the cap-and-trade regime.
  4. Average Personal Income Loss, 2012-2035: Same as above, only it is the reduction in consumer spending power in the district for the bill’s first 24 years.
  5. Non-Farm Job Loss in 2012: Jobs are jobs, and in the first year of the cap-and-trade regime, each district will have significantly less than they otherwise could.
  6. Average Non-Farm Job Loss, 2012-2035: This number is crucially important because it demonstrates that no district gains jobs, even in the long run; the increase in “green jobs” does not outweigh the decrease in jobs elsewhere.

A Final Note on JobsDuring the “stimulus” debate, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs lamented that “more companies [have] announced mass layoffs.”[6] The Bureau of Labor Statistics defines mass layoffs as “where private sector nonfarm employers indicate that 50 or more workers were separated from their jobs for at least 31 days.” Under Waxman-Markey, on average each congressional district would experience the equivalent of more than 52 mass layoffs.

Although losing several thousand jobs may not seem like a lot to some politicians who are stuck inside the beltway, the mass layoffs resulting from Waxman-Markey should make any politician–and hard working American–cringe.

The above post is quoted from & can be found at:

Mr. President, Friday, Jun 19 2009 

At the above link you will find a montage of statements you’ve made regarding Fox News. Wrapped up in that same collage are fairly obvious stabs at those conservative constituents that may not agree with your administration’s position on issues. I would offer the following sir:

The popular victory that you claimed was anything but a landslide – 69,498,215 votes for and 61,571,790 VOTES AGANIST. Can you really afford to dismiss 61.6 million voters? Figures cited from:,_2008

Statements such as:
“Those of you who are watching certain news channels on which I’m not very popular, and you see folks waving tea bags around”, Obama said, “let me just remind them that I am happy to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care costs down over the long term, how we are going to stabilize Social Security.”

 “But,” Obama continued, “let’s not play games and pretend that the reason [for the deficit] is because of the Recovery Act.” (as quoted on Politico’s website). 

Projected Deficit

In the first independent analysis, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that President Obama’s budget would rack up massive deficits even after the economy recovers, forcing the nation to borrow nearly $9.3 trillion over the next decade.

As cited from the Washington Post:

You regularly lay blame at the feet of the former administration, and yet your “recovery act” has quadrupled the debt it took Mr. Bush eight years to accumulate…in only the first 100 days. And when projected deficits are laid out side by side (accounting for your plans to “cut” health care costs, and “stabilize” social security):

The protests that have been mounted are not games. They are the result of a large percentage of the populous seeing through the rhetoric that regularly comes from your office. And my guess is that those sympathetic to the protests number at least around 62 million. That may account for the popularity of the Fox News Channel.

Regardless, your blasé and thinly veiled contempt directed towards not only Fox, but also towards conservative Americans is a truly sad thing.


Chris Beall
Baton Rouge, LA

James D. Caldwell Saturday, Jun 13 2009 

The Honorable James D. Caldwell
Attorney General of Louisiana
1885 North 3rd St.
Baton Rouge, L

Dear Attorney General Caldwell,

I am writing to thank you for your part in the defense of our individual and our collective Second Amendment rights by your standing in, “…opposition to the reinstatement of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994’s semi-automatic firearms prohibition, which is commonly referred to as the assault weapons ban.”

Your actions as well as your position are noted, and are appreciated. In an era where our Constitutional liberties and freedoms seem to be under ever increasing attack at the federal level, there is some measure of comfort in knowing that our chief law enforcement officer in the state is diligently standing in the gap to insure our rights are not stripped.

For as long as your office supports and defends our Constitution (not limiting that statement to any one right) you shall have my support. Thank you sir.

Enclosure: JUNE11.STATE.AG.LTR.pdf (June 11th State Attorneys General letter to US Attorney General Eric Holder)


Chris Beall
Baton Rouge, LA

Sonya Sotomayor Wednesday, Jun 10 2009 


I have yet to hear you publicly voice your opposition to the appointment of Sonya Sotomayor, or to stand in opposition to the push from the White House to expedite her confirmation hearings.

As my representatives, I insist that you do both.

Sonya Sotomayor in her own words, does not believe in the role of the Supreme Court as outlined in the Constitution. Sotomayor has made it clear that she:
· Would legislate from the bench.
· Could not be impartial.
· Would be biased.

For a wide variety of cited Sotomayor quotes & commentary, please view:

She has stated these things over and over again in a myriad of different venues. If she gives different answers now, then she is also a liar. There can be no acceptable stamp of approval for this appointment. Nor is silence on the matter tolerable.


Chris Beall
Baton Rouge, LA

Nationalized Health Care Wednesday, Jun 10 2009 


I am writing to voice my ardent opposition to any sort of “nationalized healthcare” system, or “socialized medicine”.

Our health care system is indeed flawed, and is in great need of serious attention – but it is still the best system on the planet. Why is it that so many foreigners clamor to come to the USA for care (while I have yet to hear of a single American vying to get their medical needs attended to anywhere outside the USA)?

The problems with nationalization of health care are practically endless…just a single issue would be monetary. Where is the money going to come from? You can always just print some more I suppose.

The answer to our woes is most assuredly not government control. Your public & vocal resistance to the push for any sort of legislation that would nationalize or socialize our healthcare system is expected and demanded.

Please refer to:


Chris Beall
Baton Rouge, LA

« Previous PageNext Page »