County also seeking $250,000 grant for small businesses

Wednesday, February 17, 2021

Like the City of Greencastle and the Town of Bainbridge, Putnam County is set to apply to the Indiana Office of Community and Rural Affairs (OCRA) for a COVID Phase III grant to help local small businesses.

At their recent meeting, the Putnam County Commissioners passed a resolution to apply for the maximum $250,000 for the COVID grant.

If approved by the state, the grant could provide up to $10,000 each for local small businesses that apply.

Grant administrator Kristy Jerrell told the Commissioners there have been 20 county applicants so far, with 25 needed to utilize the full $250,000.

Should the county have more than 25 eligible applicants, the fund would be split evenly among all of them.

While there is no local match requirement in this grant, the Commissioners have committed to pitch in $6,250 in county EDIT funds to the effort.

While the local match is important for showing local commitment to the effort, perhaps more important is the regional aspect of the application.

With Greencastle and Bainbridge both applying as well, Jerrell hopes to pitch the local commitment to the state as a regional partnership aimed at helping businesses across the county.

Jerrell said the original deadline for application was Feb. 26, but due to significant interest in the program, that was extended to March 11.

She previously informed the Greencastle City Council the state has in excess of $20 million it plans to distribute to an estimated 110 grant recipient cities and towns.

With the new deadline, Jerrell said the grants would likely be awarded on April 15, with the county able to get checks to businesses by the middle of June to early July.

Commissioners Rick Woodall and David Berry gave the resolution a 2-0 approval. Commissioner Tom Helmer was absent following the recent death of wife Cheryl.

In other business, the Commissioners:

• Opened bids on a new ambulance for Putnam County EMS.

All three bids were for a Ford E-450 Type 3, with Chief Kelly Russ wanting to move from the truck chassis of most of the current fleet to more of a van chassis.

She noted, though, that despite the “van” chassis, these will still be box ambulances. Department officials simply prefer the van bodies as they are more fuel efficient and less expensive to repair.

Siddons-Martin Emergency Group submitted a bid of $230,356, with a bid of $208,459 from Fire Service Inc. and a bid of $240,406 from PL Custom Emergency Vehicle.

One particular ambulance is of concern. Medic 5 was crashed two years ago, when it was still the property of Operation Life, and was never properly fixed. Both Russ and the Fire Service representative in attendance Monday agreed the truck should have been totaled out by the insurance company.

Russ explained that the front wheels are now pigeon toed and grind through commercial tires every six to eight weeks.

The Commissioners did not act on the bids, but planned to revisit the matter during a special session set to take place at 2 p.m. Thursday and the Putnam County Highway Department.

Chief among their concerns are having a good way to pay for not only this ambulance, but the department’s future needs.

The 2021 budget has $60,000 allocated for ambulance replacement, and while by the time the first lease payment came due next year, that number would be $120,000, it still does not allow for replacing another in a year or two.

The numbers — which will also include the sale of old ambulances — were set to be reviewed more closely on Thursday.

• Heard a request from Putnam County Health Department Administrator Joni Young to add an additional nurse to the department staff.

“One health nurse for a county of 37,000 is not enough, let alone during a pandemic,” Young said, adding that she had been granted permission to pay for additional nurses as needed through grant funds, but this is not sustainable.

“I’ve been asking for five years for a public health nurse,” Young said, “and I think now, a pandemic is showing the need for one.”

In the midst of the pandemic, current department nurse Sara Burnett took no vacation time in 2020.

Young added that there will still be plenty of work once the pandemic is over, saying that administering vaccines (even of the non-Covid variety) and the requisite paperwork keep Burnett busy enough that the department has had to cut things such as wellness programs in local schools.

She added that more and more duties are being transferred from the Indiana State Department of Health to local departments.

Woodall added that the issue has been researched and Putnam is the only county of its size or greater with Just one nurse on staff.

No decision was made on the issue, as it is a longer term matter that will require input from both the Putnam County Commissioners and Putnam County Council.

The Commissioners also granted a request by Young to provide small gifts as tokens of appreciation to some of the repeat volunteers who have helped the department’s COVID-19 vaccine clinic run smoothly.

She noted that one volunteer travels from Tippecanoe County three times a week to help.

• Approved the annual freeze-thaw ordinance implementing temporary weight limits on county roads.

With the freezing and thawing cycles of late winter and spring, roads can become soft, leaving them especially susceptible to damage by heavy vehicles.

When it is deemed necessary, the county may enact specific restrictions on specific roads for up to 90 days.

The restrictions go into effect upon the posting of the weight limit signs.

• Heard from Clear Creek Conservancy on needed asphalt improvements over the dam at Heritage Lake.

Highway Supervisor Mike Ricketts said that if INDOT approves the county’s Community Crossings request in 2021, the road will be on the agenda for new pavement in 2022.

• Gave Coroner Jon Myers their blessing to get two gas keys to purchase gas from the Putnam County Highway Department rather than paying the higher rate at a commercial gas station.

Comments
View 39 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Please protect the investment of our tax dollars by properly "fixing" Medic 5. If the qualified shop isn't in Putnam County then look elsewhere for the repair. An alignment issue is an easy fix for a heavy truck facility. The value of these trucks demand a greater repair cost. It's worth it in the long run. I support another ambulance, keep Medic 5 for backup, after properly repairing the alignment, please.

    -- Posted by H_lake34 on Thu, Feb 18, 2021, at 9:10 AM
  • *

    1) "the state has in excess of $20 million it plans to distribute to an estimated 110 grant recipient cities and towns."

    Translated: The state of Indiana has stolen more money than it needs and instead of giving the money back to those from which it came they are going to redistribute it as the state government sees fit.

    (Where is that silly rabbit to discuss the proper roles of government? I'm interested to hear if they have a thought...)

    2) "Gave Coroner Jon Myers their blessing to get two gas keys to purchase gas from the Putnam County Highway Department rather than paying the higher rate at a commercial gas station."

    I hope someone can clear this up for me b/c I honestly dont know & have questions:

    * Assuming the coronor has an "official" vehicle... is this vehicle used as his personal vehicle as well?

    * Is mileage and fuel cost kept track of re: personal vs. professional usage?

    * What is the estimated savings by giving the coroners office access to this cheaper fuel?

    I don't necessarily have a problem with it so long as he isn't driving to Florida in the county vehicle... but as a county vehicle the costs should be accounted for.

    -- Posted by dreadpirateroberts on Thu, Feb 18, 2021, at 10:09 AM
  • Why is the need for another PHN even in question?? No one really understands the responsibilities of the PHN and the health department. Our health department deals with issues for the entire county and does it with minimal staff and does it very well. I would rather see this grant money and my tax money for that matter used for the health department rather than using it on another vehicle for EMS. They have been given more money over the past few years than they can prove the need for. I want to say THANK YOU to the health department and thank you for keeping Putnam County healthy!

    -- Posted by putcoresident84 on Thu, Feb 18, 2021, at 10:24 AM
  • Our local businesses can help themselves by enforcing the mask wearing mandate with their employees. Too many businesses put up signs on the door saying that masks are required, but don't enforce it with their own employees. I know several people who will not patronize these businesses because of it. We can buy almost anything online, so why are these businesses encouraging us not to patronize their stores?

    -- Posted by Geologist on Thu, Feb 18, 2021, at 10:51 AM
  • At a certain corner gas station on Indianapolis Road, even the employees have been seen without masks. Needless to say, many of the regular patrons are not wearing them either. Lead by example!

    -- Posted by Ben Dover on Thu, Feb 18, 2021, at 11:35 AM
  • *

    VolunteerFF - Please explain how enforcing a mask mandate will help a business help themselves?

    Perhaps these employees that you are so worried about are exempt from the mask mandate? Or perhaps they don't care for government over-reach? Or just maybe... b/c its Thursday.

    A business owner risks his own (and possibly investors) capital in effort to make a return on investment. The business owner is taking nothing from you (unconstitutional grants mentioned in the article aside) but instead seeks to do commerce.

    With whom they do commerce should not be your concern, but their own.

    In this case the old adage seems quite proper: Mind your own business.

    You are welcome to start a business of like service/wares and force everyone to wear 3 masks if that is how you wish to run your business.

    Let the market decide if one is better than the other or if both businesses could survive.

    I think you would do well to ponder the ideals of free association, liberty, and why the public accommodation is anti-liberty.

    Or, in the alternative, you could stand on the corner of the courthouse holding up a big sign about mask mandates and shouting "WOE! Woe to them that choose liberty over security! Perdition shall be their lot!!"

    -- Posted by dreadpirateroberts on Thu, Feb 18, 2021, at 1:45 PM
  • The power to tax and spend is clearly enunciated in both the US and Indiana State Constitutions. So it’s pretty constitutional, despite what Blackbeard would have you believe.

    -- Posted by Koios on Thu, Feb 18, 2021, at 2:09 PM
  • Koios

    This is about a grant, not taxes. Also, is it necessary for you to call people names? Can the point you are trying to make stand on its own merit?

    -- Posted by beg on Thu, Feb 18, 2021, at 3:31 PM
  • dpr your entire argument ignores the fact that masks are not just to protect the person wearing them, but also to protect others who are near them. As for your comment about how businesses would help themselves by making their employees comply with the mandate to wear masks, a good number of people are boycotting those businesses that don't require their employees to wear the masks and therefore are risking our safety. I choose to believe the healthcare professionals and scientists over the politicians, so don't bother telling us that masks don't help slow the spread. No one has any constitutional right to infect other people.

    -- Posted by Geologist on Thu, Feb 18, 2021, at 3:32 PM
  • Beg, just using the renaming gimmick that the pirate does all the time. And it’s tax AND spend. The grant would be part of the spend.

    -- Posted by Koios on Thu, Feb 18, 2021, at 3:36 PM
  • So, you are admitting he is your model for behavior? hmmm.

    And is a conjunction tying the two together. I will just read and/ or into what you were really meaning.

    Enjoy the rest of your Thursday and stay safe.

    -- Posted by beg on Thu, Feb 18, 2021, at 4:24 PM
  • Taxes or a Grant??? The State has no money that they don't get from the people in the form of taxes!

    -- Posted by Alfred E. on Thu, Feb 18, 2021, at 5:17 PM
  • *

    Koios - LOL. "tax and spend".

    Ok, constitutional expert, please cite to me where the government has been granted the authority to direct taxpayer money to specific private companies for their economic benefit... I will wait.

    Apparently you need some civics/government classes.

    It is not the governments job to pass taxpayer money out like candy, despite how you think it works.

    VolunteerFF -

    Its a simple thing: if you don't like going into a place that doesn't make people wear masks, then exercise your liberty to stay out of there while allowing other people to exercise their liberty to shop in such an establishment.

    "a good number of people are boycotting those businesses that don't require their employees to wear the masks and therefore are risking our safety"...

    If people are boycotting a business, that is apparently a risk the business owner is willing to take. It's not your business, so mind your own.

    They are only risking their own safety, not yours, by choosing to do commerce there.

    Your statement makes no sense, by the way. Its an illogical statement to the point of hurting.

    You can believe who you wish. That's one of the great things about this country.

    LOL - you apparently dont know or understand what constitutional rights are or how they work, what with your continued illogical thought processes: I don't have a right to infect someone (I never said anyone did) but yet you believe you should have the right to tell someone else how to run their business.

    -- Posted by dreadpirateroberts on Thu, Feb 18, 2021, at 5:22 PM
  • Pirate, try Article 1, Section 8. It’s fine that you don’t agree with the policy, but to call it unconstitutional is about as credible as Giuliani’s evidence of election fraud.

    -- Posted by Koios on Thu, Feb 18, 2021, at 6:12 PM
  • *

    It appears that I've found some rent-free space inside someone's head, right next to Ludwig von Mises' futon of austerity.

    -- Posted by Bunny1E on Thu, Feb 18, 2021, at 7:47 PM
  • *

    Uh oh bunny. Now we're going to have another word salad by DPR incoming in 3...2...1...

    -- Posted by RSOTS on Thu, Feb 18, 2021, at 9:52 PM
  • I wish participants would not go down these roads. The hope of the comments are to create conflict, not to discuss content.

    I was hoping we are better than this. Sadly,...........

    -- Posted by beg on Fri, Feb 19, 2021, at 8:25 AM
  • *

    Koios - Article 1 Section 8 grants the government power to collect taxes to provide for the payment of the specific things charged to the Federal government.

    Depending on where the State of Indiana is getting this money (whether through Federal grants or Indiana taxpayer money), your Article 1 Section 8 argument is either wrong (if Fed tax money is involved) or irrelevant on its face (if it is strictly state tax money).

    Care to try again?

    Although, from your ludicrous comparison I am beginning to wonder if you are simply not trying to earn a spot in the gadfly collective.

    As you can see, they have shown up and seem to have taken a liking to you.

    -- Posted by dreadpirateroberts on Fri, Feb 19, 2021, at 9:45 AM
  • The US Congress and State Legislatures have the constitutional authority to tax and spend. They do it all the time! I’ll say it again, it’s perfectly fine to object to how and on what tax money is spent on by governmental entities, but to call that unconstitutional is simply not accurate. However I forgive your transgressions here, as many on the political right are currently having difficulties separating fact from fiction, hence the Giuliani reference above, I suppose.

    -- Posted by Koios on Fri, Feb 19, 2021, at 10:36 AM
  • *

    Koios - Our governments are set up in such a way that they are granted power by the people to do certain things. In order to effect these certain limited powers, they are granted the power to tax.

    So unless you can show me constitutional powers granted to the government to redistribute tax dollars for the benefit of some over others, your simple claim of "tax and spend" based on the fact that they do it all the time, doesn't hold true.

    Doing something continuously does not make it valid, especially when it is contrary to the authority delegated.

    Perhaps the problem is that you seem to see the government as the source of power/authority instead of the people.

    -- Posted by dreadpirateroberts on Fri, Feb 19, 2021, at 11:20 AM
  • Pirate, if you must know I don’t really care for government handouts, but that doesn’t mean they are unconstitutional. They are instead mostly bad (in my opinion) legislative and sometimes executive decisions and actions.

    -- Posted by Koios on Fri, Feb 19, 2021, at 12:06 PM
  • Fact and fiction issues are clearly a left and right issue. The current definition of truth now falls in line with the new definition of tolerance- I am tolerant of those I agree with.

    Hence, truth is defined by what those I agree with philosophically tell me the truth is.

    This is true on both sides of the aisle. It is a bi partisan effort!!!!! So, I guess it could be said we do have unity between the right and the left!

    -- Posted by beg on Fri, Feb 19, 2021, at 12:23 PM
  • *

    Koios - if it is outside of the parameters of authority granted to the government by the people, via the constitution, it is by definition unconstitutional.

    I double-checked, just to be really sure, and there is nothing in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution that grants the Federal government the power to redistribute tax money in such a way as to favor one business (or state) over another. Nothing even close. They do not have the authority to pass out tax money like candy.

    As for the Indiana Constitution... again, nothing granting the State of Indiana the authority to distribute tax money to benefit one entity over another.

    In fact, there is something that is glaringly and obviously not being followed:

    * "any surplus that may, at any time, remain in the Treasury, derived from taxation for general State purposes, after the payment of the ordinary expenses of the government, and of the interest on bonds of the State, other than Bank bonds; shall be annually applied, under the direction of the General Assembly, to the payment of the principal of the Public Debt."

    This would mean that the states "Rainy Day fund" is unconstitutional, as well as this "$20 Million that they plan on spreading around should be spent on paying down the public debt.

    -- Posted by dreadpirateroberts on Fri, Feb 19, 2021, at 1:10 PM
  • DPR said, "Doing something continuously does not make it valid, especially when it is contrary to the authority delegated."

    DPR said, "Perhaps the problem is that you seem to see the government as the source of power/authority instead of the people."

    Precisely the argument against a living constitution.

    How quickly we, as Americans, forget. Does anyone remember just one of the latest examples when the government spent hugely for the common good? It was called Solyndra. Everyone could see it this financial disaster coming, except those so determined to spend our money for the common good. No denying there are times when such spending is correct, such as during a war or flat-out emergency; even our forefathers could see that, but what a waste when it is used to affect public policy or used as a tool against liberty and freedom.

    -- Posted by Prince of Stardust Hills on Fri, Feb 19, 2021, at 2:01 PM
  • Pirate if you want to keep misusing the word unconstitutional, go ahead it’s a free country.

    Focus on the words “general welfare” in the US constitution and the words “ordinary expenses” in the Indiana Constitution. Again, feel free to disagree with the way a government spends tax revenue, but it has a constitutional right to do so.

    -- Posted by Koios on Fri, Feb 19, 2021, at 2:23 PM
  • DPR said, "I double-checked, just to be really sure, and there is nothing in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution that grants the Federal government the power to redistribute tax money in such a way as to favor one business (or state) over another."

    Pirate, I believe you are 100 percent correct. Even a victim of the public school system should be able to understand that much. The constitution was never meant to favor one business over another. A different opinion violates commonsense and invites continued abuse by the democrat/socialists.

    I'm all for California and other progressive states learning to manage their own budgets without my tax dollars guaranteeing a safe recovery should they continue to spend stupidly.

    -- Posted by Prince of Stardust Hills on Fri, Feb 19, 2021, at 2:49 PM
  • We are now in a circle conversation. Points clearly made and stated well. Time to let the citizenry to decide what they think.

    Either way, I am confident minds were not changed since they were probably not open to begin with. I am also going to guess the state nor federal government are going to quit this behavior based on our conversation.

    So, here we are- positions stated, positions restated, people not changing positions, government not changing behavior.

    Only thing left to be done is for the position opposite of what the leftist/ liberals believe in to be muted and canceled.

    -- Posted by beg on Fri, Feb 19, 2021, at 3:38 PM
  • *

    Koios - LOL.

    The word "unconstitutional" has a very strict definition - something that is outside the boundaries of the constitution; something not constitutional - and I have shown these things to be within that strict definition.

    Oh, I was wondering when you would get around to this... "general welfare" and "ordinary expenses". This is a favourite of the 2+2=5 crowd, trying to give broad definition to narrowly defined terms in order to justify a lie.

    Again, both of these terms have meanings within the context of their writing and neither of these meanings are in line with your idea of what they mean.

    "General Welfare" is part of the whole clause "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" which generally explains the reasons for allowing the Federal government to tax.

    Specifically, "common defence and general welfare" is a compound term that is more rigidly defined in the rest of Article 1 Section 8.

    If you don't want to take my word for it, try Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #83:

    "This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.”

    As for "ordinary expenses" in the Indiana Constitution, the word "ordinary" means "standard". Something that is standard is defined.

    This definition is found in the Indiana Constitution itself. Much like the Federal Constitution, the Indiana state government is only granted powers specifically enumerated for specific purposes.

    And as giving away taxpayer money for the benefit of some at the expense of others is NOT found in the state constitution nor can it be found within the very ideals upon our system of government is based, it is... again, by its very definition...UNCONSTITUTIONAL. (Outside the boundaries of the constitution.)

    It really isn't that difficult.

    -- Posted by dreadpirateroberts on Fri, Feb 19, 2021, at 3:42 PM
  • Pirate you should immediately petition the US and Indiana Supreme Courts to get this rampant “unconstitutional” activity under control, our Democracy demands it! You’ll be laughed out of there quicker than Giuliani was.

    -- Posted by Koios on Fri, Feb 19, 2021, at 6:17 PM
  • KOIOS, you have a point. As America transforms from a country of individual freedom and liberty to one of collective and government dependence, things will change. The Supreme Court has already warned that constitutional precedence may not be the determining factor if

    a decision injures individuals, companies, or organizations, or society as a whole. And what injures an individual, company, or organization WILL certainly change as America continues to redefine and distance itself from a free society to one of dependence on the government.

    Twenty years ago or more, those who cared often debated if the constitution was forever, written in black and white, or was, indeed, a living document. It is a slow transformation, but its obvious that our perception of what the Constitution means is being weakened.

    -- Posted by Prince of Stardust Hills on Fri, Feb 19, 2021, at 7:18 PM
  • Donald Trump is President de facto. "America First".

    Joe Biden is the illegal usurper. "America Last".

    Think about it.

    -- Posted by donantonio on Fri, Feb 19, 2021, at 9:29 PM
  • Pirate, how Constitutional are distracted driving laws, they are not “specifically enumerated” in the Indiana or US Constitution? Waiting to see how your legal argument does some more mental gymnastics here. I’ll give you credit, you are the Gold medal winner at that event. Freedom and Liberty!

    -- Posted by Koios on Fri, Feb 19, 2021, at 10:25 PM
  • I wonder how many folks today ever ponder why Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death!" instead of, "Give me freedom or give me death!" There is a difference, and it is, or was, an important difference to our nation's founders.

    The fact that the difference is little understood or ignored entirely by our nation's leaders and educators, including parents, is perhaps a primary reason for our country's decline and slide toward progressiveness.

    Patrick Henry precisely understood the relationship between freedom and liberty.

    -- Posted by Prince of Stardust Hills on Sat, Feb 20, 2021, at 11:20 AM
  • Our country is only in decline for people who are afraid of change. Its interesting, the last four years was supposed to make America great again...most of us didn't think we weren't great. Some might say we are worse after this whole MAGA charade though.

    -- Posted by BJCP96 on Sat, Feb 20, 2021, at 11:51 AM
  • Only is a very big word and, from my perspective, not an accurate position on what seems more likely a multi layered situation.

    When listening to public and private expression, I don't believe people considered America great. I think waning would be an accurate picture. Some yes, some thought awful, most thought in between.

    Some would say we are worse off now. Some would not. Some would have said the same after the Obama was President.

    All change is not positive. I would imagine everyone has something they think shouldn't change.

    I understand the bigger point you want to make- you perceive you are more open to change than others, you didn't like the past President, and some think we are not as great.

    Only ruined the argument because it paints my perspective that you consider our issues very narrow when I am confident, if we were able to have a discussion, we would agree they are not.

    -- Posted by beg on Sat, Feb 20, 2021, at 2:19 PM
  • Koios,

    I want to ponder upon your arguments but you take that desire away from me giving that effort when you must go after individuals you disagree with.

    Would you consider stopping at the end of your argument/ position going forward?

    -- Posted by beg on Sat, Feb 20, 2021, at 2:29 PM
  • *

    Koios - LOL.

    These are your best arguments? 1) The courts would laugh at me... 2) A straw-man.

    Well, I am in a pretty good mood so I will indulge you for a moment. Not that I think it will do you any good b/c you don't care what I have to say, you merely wish to be contrary...but maybe it will encourage someone else to think about such things.

    1) The courts are filled with Republicans and Democrats, neither of which are interested in following the Constitution as written but only as it will benefit them. Both parties are corporations who are more interested in power than the ideals of liberty. They are two sides of the same coin, from the US Supreme Court to the Putnam County courthouse. From the White House to the County Commissioners. From the Congress of the US to the County Council.

    So I would not be surprised if they did laugh. I would fully expect them to. But they would know that I know the game they play. And I am not so sensitive as to worry about being mocked in light of standing up for what is right.

    Perhaps you should remember Gandhi's words: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

    2) Your straw-man argument requires no mental gymnastics. It really doesn't deserve a response other than to point out that it is a straw-man argument. But, as I have a few moments still, I will despatch your straw-man and then ask that you try harder to stay on point: unconstitutional spending.

    There is a large divide between the criminal code which is designed specifically to set the boundaries of acceptable behavior in a society, and the spending of taxpayer money for the benefit of one entity at the expense of another.

    And while I don't have the time to start digging thru both Constitutions again today for proper citation (although I imagine it would be a waste of time in regards to you anyway), I am pretty sure that even the Founding Fathers would agree that the ability to write such criminal code is indeed found in the US Constitution and the Legislature of Indiana throughout the ages, including those that wrote Indiana's constitution, would agree.

    -- Posted by dreadpirateroberts on Mon, Feb 22, 2021, at 9:54 AM
  • The point was you improperly using the term unconstitutional. The right for a government to tax and spend is in the Constitution just as the right of a legislature to enact criminal code is. It is that simple.

    -- Posted by Koios on Mon, Feb 22, 2021, at 6:23 PM
  • *

    LOL.

    Your OPINION that I am using a term improperly has been clearly refuted by FACTS.

    Yet you continue to believe a lie rather than learn the truth.

    There is no hope for you.

    -- Posted by dreadpirateroberts on Tue, Feb 23, 2021, at 9:36 AM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: