Just eloped, Andy and Daena!

It all started when New Zealand college student Andy Moore began interning on this blog – could it be only 2 short years ago?!

[Read the rest of this entry…]

4th video on Planned Parenthood released: “Another boy!”


In the past 2-1/2 weeks we’ve seen Planned Parenthood high level abortionists discuss “crushing” babies over salad and wine,  “crunching” babies to get enough money for Lamborghinis, and profits to be made over a petri dish of baby parts.

But today’s is the most heart-rending, in my opinion. At the shocking conclusion of Center for Medical Progress’s video exposé #4, a medical assistant in the procurement room proudly announces the tiny, dissected baby in the petri dish in front of her is “another boy!” It’s the utterly depraved.

Bear in mind the babies analyzed in today’s video were 11.6 and 12 weeks old - on the outside edge of the first trimester. The heart, stomach, kidney, eyeballs, and even adrenal glands can be visualized. And the tiny little guy’s sex organ.

This video was recorded at the Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains in Denver, with abortionist Savita Ginde, its Vice President and Medical Director.

Ginde and crew are as gross, calloused, and cold as we’ve seen the others to be, if not more so.

Conversation in the “procurement room”:

Ginde: It’s a baby. [Re: 11.6-weeker]

Buyer: Is that the heart?

Assistant: I think so, here’s the heart.

Ginde: Everyone’s trying to get in on it.

Assistant: My fingers will smush it if I try to get it out. The heart is right there….

Ginde: So do people want brain? What do they do with brain? [Re: 12 weeker]

Buyer: Yeah, so brain, what you can do is –

Ginde: Do people do stuff with eyeballs?

Buyer: Oh, yeah. Although eyeballs, they generally want more developed than this. Then the cal[varium, head], there was, first there was a brain in here –

Ginde: Blasted out?

Buyer: Yeah, it got blasted out with the water.

Ginde: Well, you know a lot of times, especially with the 2nd tris [trimester] is we won’t even put water, because it’s so big you can put your hand in there and just pick up the parts.

Buyer: Right, just pick it up.

Ginde: So I don’t think it would be as war-torn.

Buyer: “War-torn”? Oh, dear.

Ginde: Here’s some organs for you. They’re all attached. Here’s a stomach, kidney, heart… adrenal. I don’t know what else is in there – tiny.

Assistant: I don’t see the legs, do you see the legs?

Buyer: There you go, yep.

Assistant: And another boy!

327-its_a_boy_balloonAbout that horrendous final comment, Chris Crawford of the Susan B. Anthony List wrote in an email:

At our Gala, Senator Lindsey Graham talked about how the debate we find ourselves in is a debate about who we are as a country. And this last video shows the greatest contrast possible between our side and their side.

When my mother was pregnant with me, the doctor excitedly announced, “It’s a boy!” when they looked at the ultrasound.

When I was born (6 weeks early) people came to the hospital with balloons that said, “It’s a boy!”

“It’s a boy!” and “It’s a girl!” are exclamations that are shared at the most exciting, hopeful parts of the beginning of a new human person’s life.

And here in this video, we have a technician shuffling through the parts of an aborted baby. She moves his heart that has stopped beating, his lungs that will never take in air, and his legs that will never walk, and excitedly shouts “It’s a boy!”

It’s disturbing. It’s haunting. And I think this is the line that we have to draw between our two opposing movements, and between good and evil in our country, frankly.

A coalition of pro-life groups is organizing a national day of protest at Planned Parenthoods across the country on August 22, from 9-11 a.m. Please plan to join them.

Please make comments to this article at my Facebook post!

Planned Parenthood is trying to derail the convo but NO: Stay. On. Message.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America
and its allies want desperately to steer the conversation away from its senior medical director, who cheerfully discussed harvesting babies’ livers over some salad and a nice chianti, to borrow a line from Hannibal Lecter.

And away from the fact the abortion giant illegally trafficks baby parts – and commits illegal partial birth abortions to do so.

Planned Parenthood wants to suck us into side debates to get away from the reality of what it does.

The conversation Planned Parenthood wants to derail us to is on the merits of embryonic stem cell and fetal tissue research. Hence, its statement yesterday:

In health care, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, treatments and cures for serious diseases. Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different….

And, on cue, Time magazine today:

Research using fetuses has also led to medical advances, including in Parkinson’s Disease and the development of a Polio vaccine….

The American Medical Association, for instance, separates a woman’s decision to have an abortion from the decision to donate fetal tissue and argues that fetal tissue has the potential to save lives.

But NO, don’t let them separate this issue! As a conservative strategist told me today:

Planned Parenthood is going to try and keep echoing that what they do is legal and life-saving. That’s going to be PP’s message, because that’s all they’ve got to try and neutralize the damage.

So we should not get caught up in their little game.  Stay the course, on the message that showcases the video and the evil doctor eating her lunch and talking baby parts sales.

Americans United for Life has developed talking points in the form of questions to help us stay on message:

  • How much money is being exchanged for baby hearts, livers, lungs, and other body parts? Are interstate commerce laws being violated in the transportation of baby parts?
  • Are mothers fully informed, and do they give legal consent to the sale of their babies’ hearts, livers, and lungs?
  • Is the illegal Partial Birth Abortion procedure used in an effort to gain valuable later-term, more fully formed heads and hearts?
  • Is the Born Alive Infant Protection Act violated in in an effort to gain valuable later-term, more fully formed heads and hearts?
  • Are women encouraged to endure dangerous late-term abortion procedures by abortionists who know that body parts from more developed infants sell for more money?
  • Are federal funds used to subsidize any of the facilities or procedures used in “harvesting” fetal tissue after the abortion was performed?

2015-07-15_1652Another talking point comes from of all places a bioethicist quoted by CNN, who pointed out that in the video (which has already gotten almost 1.5 MILLION views) PPFA Senior Medical Director Deborah Nucatola promoted unsafe medicine:

Caplan also was concerned about another part of the video where Nucatola talks about doctors doing abortions in which ultrasound is used to know where to grab the fetus with forceps.

“We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver because we know that, I’m not going to crush that part,” the doctor says.

Caplan told CNN’s Elizabeth Cohen that altering procedures in order to get tissue in the best condition would be a “big no-no.”

“In abortion the primary goal is to give the safest abortion possible,” he said. “Your sole concern has to be the mother and her health.”

He said there’s a parallel in patient care: When someone is dying, doctors shouldn’t change how they treat the patient in order to harvest good tissue for donation after death.

Doctors should treat the patient as they normally would, and then use whatever is available after death. If a provider is considering how to get the tissue that’s in the best shape, “that’s a huge conflict of interest. … If you modify how someone dies, that’s unethical.”

What an interesting correlation: Babies being aborted and dying patients? And this crazy aside: “If you modify how someone dies, that’s unethical”? Really? There’s an unethical way to murder a baby and an ethical way?

But whatever. These people are crazy. The point is Nucatola, who teaches PPFA’s incoming abortionists, was advocating a standard of care that put the woman’s best interest second, after profit gain. And that point should also be pushed.

Stay the course!

Make comments on this article at my Facebook post.

“Immediatist vs Incrementalist” debate analysis, Part II: There’s only one way to cut down a tree?

Click to enlarge…


While arguing in defense of abortion immediatism during his debate against Center for Bio-Ethical Reform’s Gregg Cunningham, Abolish Human Abortion’s T. Russell Hunter used a tree analogy.

Hunter claimed cutting off “branches” of abortion through incremental laws is more than a waste of time, it’s counterproductive, because new branches take their place. The only way to end abortion, said Hunter, is to ignore the branches and focus on chopping down the tree.

Hunter’s tree-cutting analogy is erroneous for several reasons, foremost because removing branches first is exactly how it’s done. I happen to know this because we had to have three big trees cut down in our yard last year (thanks, ash borers), and I happened to take video. Little did I know how handy it would come in…


At risk of taking Hunter’s tree analogy too far, I daresay all trees in populated areas, such as where abortion exists, are cut down branches first.

In fact, as Cunningham pointed out, “In the entire history of social reform, no activists have ever outlawed a major injustice ‘immediately.'” It has always been branches first.

suckerWell, now that I’ve started down this path, I’ll add it seems indicative to me of Hunter’s antiquated, undeveloped logic that he would use shears and an ax in his illustration to cut off branches and take down a tree. In both cases only a saw will do, unless one wants to take forever, or one is too small to handle a saw, or one hasn’t properly assessed the tree.

Ok, one other point, Hunter is apparently unaware that suckers can grow from trunks (see photo right), so it’s not as if cutting a tree down is necessarily the end of things.

That’s the last of my immediatism tree analogies. On with Hunter’s.

Video of Hunter’s argument is below. In it he makes several gaffes in relation to incrementalism.

2015-05-01_1048One is that he shows a new branch of late-term abortion growing from the cut-off branch of partial-birth abortion.

That’s not accurate. No new branches have grown. There are only so many ways to commit late-term abortions. So the other methods are separate branches we are also working to lop off, such as 12+ week dismemberment abortions, a new target.

About dismemberment bans Hunter misquoted me (at 5:05 in video below) as stating, “Of course, there are other methods that might grow up in its place.” Not true. I wrote:

The fact that abortionists might simply switch procedures disturbs me, of course, although I know the mere title, “Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Act,” is incredibly educational.

But Balch reminded me the induced labor abortion method requires a higher level of expertise, as abortionists testified during the Partial Birth Abortion Ban hearings….

So, yes, a Dismemberment Ban would stop many babies from being aborted.

At any rate, don’t bans against 20-week abortions, or 13-week abortions, or 6-week abortions address Hunter’s concern about banning methods? Those are branches we are certain can never grow back.

It is true the Culture of Death, i.e., Satan, is constantly devising new ways (“branches”) to kill innocent children. It is naive to think otherwise.

Such as the emerging worldwide black market for abortion pills. This phenomenon has nothing to do with whether abortion is legal in the U.S. It’s simply another new abortion branch that will need chopping off.

So here’s Hunter’s tree analogy…


I know Hunter is a smart guy. I know he knows he grossly misrepresents the pro-life movement, such as at 7:47 in the video:

And you say [to pro-life leaders], “Well, why don’t you say abortion is murder and sin and seek its abolition?” Well, because they can’t. Because it’s legal. And the courts have said. So now instead of that wily snake saying that we gotta keep legal abortion safe, legal, and rare, we’ve got pro-lifers saying, “As long as abortion is legal, it should be safe, early, and painless.”

2015-05-01_1233Hunter knows it is ludicrous to claim pro-lifers keep secret the fact that “abortion is murder and sin” and don’t “seek its abolition.” He knows perfectly well we do both. It is slander of the worst kind for Hunter to claim the end game for pro-lifers is that abortion be “safe, early, and painless.” He knows perfectly well why we pursue incremental efforts.

(All this while Hunter pursues his own self-approved brand of incrementalism – geographical incrementalism.)

So why does Hunter persist? Stay tuned for Part III: “Immediatist underpinnings collapse.”

Also read:
Part I: Let babies die today, we can save the rest later.

Pro-life blog buzz 3-6-15

pro-lifeby Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli

  • At Bound4Life, Marisa Lengor Kwaning draws attention to the real war on women, which is happening on a global scale – from Boko Haram to gendercide:

    Perhaps, unfortunately, we have gotten used to the fact that girls are going missing in huge numbers all around the world. Because the real war on women begins in the womb.

    In India alone, one million girls are intentionally aborted each year because of their gender…. As a result, 50 million girls are missing in India today.

    The lack of women has caused a drastic rise in sex trafficking and kidnapping of girls as brides to unwed men….

    It would be flawed, however, to dismiss gendercide as an Asian or communist countries’ problem. From 1995-2005, fifteen hundred girls went missing among Indian communities in England and Wales. Topic experts agree that sex-selective abortions was the only viable explanation for this steep decline of girls….

    And the issue persists today. It’s no wonder women and girls are kidnapped and attacked at alarming rates globally.

  • Dr. Michael New gives kudos to New York Times pro-choice columnist Linda Greenhouse for her “surprisingly fair tribute” to Dr. John C. Willke, a pro-life pioneer.

Processed with VSCOcam with f2 preset

  • Live Action News features the story of Ellis Rodriguez, born after her father passed away from cancer at age 35. The joy of Ellis’ birth quickly turned to tragedy, however, as she developed bacterial meningitis and was deemed by doctors to be “incompatible with life.” As Ellis’ mother Sarah removed her from the ventilator and rocked her while saying her goodbyes, Ellis started breathing on her own. She also shows no signs of the profound brain damage she was expected to have. Read more about Sarah, her late husband Joel, Ellis and Ellis’ big brother, Milo, here.
  • Father Frank Pavone uses Scripture to show that in God’s eyes, the preborn child is just as valuable as his mother.
  • Culture Campaign discusses yet another potential pro-life ethical dilemma – that of implanting aborted human fetal tissue into animals to grow organs for human transplant:

    As the technology has advanced, researchers have begun developing a technique that could get more kidneys to people who need transplants. But the method is controversial: It is now feasible to remove a kidney from an aborted human fetus and implant the organ into a rat, where the kidney can grow to a larger size. It’s possible that further work could find a way to grow kidneys large enough that they could be transplanted into a person, the researchers said, although much more research is needed to determine whether this could be done.

  • Big Blue Wave examines the complaints of a Huffington Post writer who feels she is mistreated because of her desire to remain child-free. But BBW wonders if it is the reasoning behind the decision to remain child-free that is the real issue:

    Is it perhaps that childfree people often admit to selfish tendencies, aren’t embarrassed about them, and then declare that we’re supposed to not judge them for not wanting children based on their own admission of selfishness?

    Do you think that might have something to do with it? Or maybe their own admitted disdain for a certain demographic of humanity?

    Imagine if she had said that she didn’t like blacks or gays and didn’t want to interact with them, especially after having admitted not having interacted with them.

    She would have zero credibility among progressives. But because it’s about children, that’s okay.


  • Students for Life reports that during yesterday’s Pro-Life Chalk Day, in which pro-lifers are encouraged to share pro-life messages with sidewalk chalk, some pro-“choice” women – naturally, in the true spirit of freedom of choice – decided that free pro-life speech must be stamped out. They vandalized a display created by Mizzou Students for Life and then bragged about it on Twitter (click to enlarge image):

    Around 8am this morning, one of our members discovered that many of the messages had been destroyed. Later in the morning we were mentioned on Twitter by @MissJuBooty who said “Women deserve better than being told how to make decisions with their own body as they walk home” (mocking one of our quotes “Women deserve better than abortion”)….

    What strikes me the most is that they even destroyed the messages with the local pregnancy help clinic number. Several of these were accompanied with the words “You have options”. If they truly cared about women and true choice, they would allow as many people as possible to see that number and hopefully call it to receive guidance on their options- which means more than just an abortion referral from Planned Parenthood.

Abortion advocates definitely do not like the word “dismemberment”


Bloomberg journalist Esme E. Deprez was tasked with informing readers about the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Act, which last month was introduced in both Kansas and Oklahoma.

The writing experience obviously wasn’t pleasant for her.

But, of course. To be forced to describe a “technique” that dismembers small, recognizable humans – Dilation and Evacuation abortions – can’t be fun.

Which is the point.

Deprez preempted pro-life depictions of D&E abortions with a reminder that they are “common… used in 96% of second-trimester abortions.”

In other words, everybody’s doing them, so they must be ok.

Yet pro-lifers are making D&Es sound so… depraved. Deprez tried to make us the bad guys for “deploying grisly language… to rebrand a medical procedure with a new and unsettling name.” I’ll own that.

Indeed, here is how the bills describe the “medical procedure” they aim to ban:

… to dismember a living unborn child and extract him or her one piece at a time from the uterus through use of clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors or similar instruments that, through the convergence of two rigid levers, slice, crush, and/or grasp a portion of the unborn child’s body to cut or rip it off.

No surprise, abortion proponents told Deprez the bills “inaccurately describe” D&E abortions with “misleading and inflammatory language.”

Which raises the obvious follow-up question: Well then, what is an accurate description?

Which – surprise – Deprez didn’t ask.

carhart closeupBut here’s another surprise: a late-term abortionist who upstaged pro-lifers with an even more graphic description of D&E abortions – LeRoy “Crock-Pot” Carhart (pictured right).

In his dissent after the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly overturned Nebraska’s Partial Birth Abortion Ban in 2000, Justice Anthony Kennedy quoted testimony by Carhart (I’m removing footnote references and adding paragraph breaks for ease of reading):

As described by Dr. Carhart, the D&E procedure requires the abortionist to use instruments to grasp a portion (such as a foot or hand) of a developed and living fetus and drag the grasped portion out of the uterus into the vagina.

Dr. Carhart uses the traction created by the opening between the uterus and vagina to dismember the fetus, tearing the grasped portion away from the remainder of the body. The traction between the uterus and vagina is essential to the procedure because attempting to abort a fetus without using that traction is described by Dr. Carhart as “pulling the cat’s tail” or “drag[ging] a string across the floor, you’ll just keep dragging it. It’s not until something grabs the other end that you are going to develop traction.”

The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn from limb from limb. The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off. Dr. Carhart agreed that “[w]hen you pull out a piece of the fetus, let’s say, an arm or a leg and remove that, at the time just prior to removal of the portion of the fetus, … the fetus [is] alive.”

Dr. Carhart has observed fetal heartbeat via ultrasound with “extensive parts of the fetus removed,” and testified that mere dismemberment of a limb does not always cause death because he knows of a physician who removed the arm of a fetus only to have the fetus go on to be born “as a living child with one arm.” At the conclusion of a D&E abortion no intact fetus remains. In Dr. Carhart’s words, the abortionist is left with “a tray full of pieces.”

Well, ack. Talk about “inflammatory language.”

2015-02-11_0846What the abortion crowd obviously prefers is technical language. Quoting from the 2009 edition of the National Abortion Federation Handbook on how to commit D&E abortions:

After about 16 weeks’ gestation, the 16-mm suction cannula alone is not sufficient, and forceps extraction is necessary….

Once the forceps has passed through the internal os, open the jaws as widely as possible to encircle the fetal tissue….

After 16 weeks’ gestation, fetal skeletal development is such that the surgeon can manually sense the presence of fetal parts within the closed jaws….

After grasping a fetal part, withdraw the forceps while gently rotating it. This maneuver brings the fetus in the lower uterine segment before the grasped fetal part is separated (if necessary) and removed….

If a fetal extremity is brought through the cervix without separation, advance the forceps beyond the extremity to grasp part of the fetal trunk….

During the procedure, try to identify and keep track of fetal parts as they are removed. A “pouch” or surgical pan at the edge of the table to catch fetal parts can assist this process….

[T]issue examination at the end of the procedure helps to verify complete evacuation. Identify major fetal parts, including the calvarium, pelvis, spine, and extremities….

Measurement of fetal foot length has been used to estimate gestational age after abortion….

Fair warning, Justice Kennedy won’t like a sterile description of D&E abortions if and when a dismemberment ban reaches the Supreme Court. Again, from his aforementioned dissenting opinion:

Words invoked by the majority, such as “transcervical procedures,” “[o]smotic dilators,” “instrumental disarticulation,” and “paracervical block,” may be accurate and are to some extent necessary, but for citizens who seek to know why laws on this subject have been enacted across the Nation, the words are insufficient.

Repeated references to sources understandable only to a trained physician may obscure matters for persons not trained in medical terminology.

But, of course, obscuring is the point. Actually, NAF goes beyond obscuring to erasing. The diagram in its handbook of a D&E abortion completely omits the object of the surgery. Imagine a diagram of an appendectomy with no appendix. And yet (click to enlarge)…


But here is an accurate depiction of a D&E abortion, about which abortion proponents can possibly have no argument, since it merely illustrates their sterile description (click to enlarge):


Quoting Deprez again:

“Abortion care can be, in the abstract, deeply upsetting and the anti-abortion movement using the word ‘dismemberment’ is not an accident,” said Carole Joffe, a reproductive health sociologist at the University of California at San Francisco. “It puts the pro-choice movement on the defensive.”

And why not?

[HT: Susie; for NAF handbook and Kennedy dissent: National Right to Life’s Mary Balch]

Liberals drool over idea that politicians may become pro-choice

15-tim-ryanby Kelli

Ryan identifies as Catholic and previously described himself as pro-life. He has supported several pieces of anti-abortion legislation during his time in Congress — including restrictions on minors seeking abortions, a ban on embryonic stem cell research, and a ban on so-called “partial birth” abortions.

But, according to his new op-ed, Ryan has since “come to believe that we must trust women and families — not politicians — to make the best decision for their lives.”

The congressman says he has listened to women across the country talk about their personal experiences with abortion. Some told him they became pregnant from abusive relationships or from sexual assaults. Others said they couldn’t afford to have another child.

Ryan heard from women who developed serious health issues during their pregnancies, and from underage girls are were afraid their parents would kick them out for getting pregnant.

“These women gave me a better understanding of how complex and difficult certain situations can become. And while there are people of good conscience on both sides of this argument, one thing has become abundantly clear to me: the heavy hand of government must not make this decision for women and families,” Ryan writes. “No federal or state law banning abortion can honestly and fairly take into account the various circumstances that make each decision unique.”…

Ryan’s change of heart may signal a potential path forward for reproductive rights supporters eager to shift the political landscape around abortion, which has remained largely unchanged for the past several decades.

~ Tara Culp-Ressler, writing on Rep. Tim Ryan’s (D-OH; pictured) gradual “evolution” from pro-life to pro-choice, Think Progress, January 28

[Photo via nymag.com]

MD officials consulted NARAL in effort to shut down pregnancy centers

by Kelli

Screen Shot 2015-01-14 at 5.30.07 PMEmails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request have revealed that Maryland government officials and activists with the state chapter of NARAL Pro-Choice America have been working closely together on a legal effort to shut down a local pro-life pregnancy care center.

The emails have also revealed a seven-part plan developed by NARAL to shut down pro-life pregnancy care centers that could indicate a nationwide strategy….

The emails obtained… reveal that, unbeknownst to the public, Montgomery County dropped the case after conferring with NARAL. The county stopped defending the law the month after NARAL recommended that very action in a March 14, 2014 letter, sent a week after the judge permanently blocked the law.

“It is our hope that the Montgomery County Council (Council) will once again partner with us to ensure Montgomery Council citizens are aware of the misleading tactics used by crisis pregnancy centers,” Maryland’s NARAL chapter president, Jodi Finkelstein, wrote….

In the letter, sent by the county to LifeSiteNews along with other emails through a Freedom of Information Act request, Finkelstein “strongly” recommended that the county drop the case and implement seven other strategies.

Those strategies include:

  • Prosecuting volunteers and employees of pregnancy care centers for “consumer protection violations”
  • Forbidding [PRCs] from “participating in advertising” that county officials deem “untrue or misleading”
  • Allowing women who claim they were “harmed by limited-service pregnancy centers to collect monetary damages” from women’s centers
  • Denying taxpayer funding to crisis pregnancy centers
  • Instructing county officials not to refer women to CPCs for ultrasounds or to “very clearly differentiate the centers from legitimate medical providers”
  • Having the county undertake a “public awareness campaign” against pregnancy centers…
  • The regulation of ultrasound practices.

“We are pleased to offer our continued assistance in any way as you move forward,” Finkelstein writes.

~ Dustin Siggins, Life Site News, January 13

PDFs of email exchanges here.

Who Is Jill Stanek?

Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.

Read Jill's full bio »
What the Media says »

  • May 2016
  • December 2015
  • October 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005

  • Categories