This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.

The residue of deceitful acts from the past worms its way into the next generation, turning a husband against his wife, a mother against her own children and a brother against his siblings. Told in three parts, the members of a once-prestigious family recount their struggles with a host of demons stemming from the malicious secrets that not only torment their lives but also the lives of those around them. Help is presented in several manifestations but is not easily recognized by those who have never known compassion. Fully equipped with angels and miracles, this is a story of discovering faith in the lowliest of places. It is God's mercy for the wretched, and His forgiveness to the unforgivable. Nothing has been held back.

The majority of the news focused on the Richmond tax proposal: 64% of articles were about Richmond, compared with only 15% about El Monte; 6% were primarily about some other sugary drink policy (such as a soda size limit proposed by New York City's then-Mayor Michael Bloomberg), while 15% of news stories had another focus, such as a profile of Jeff Ritterman, the city council member who developed, sponsored and promoted the Richmond measure. The majority of the coverage was news (57%), while 43% was opinion writing, includ- ing letters to the editor, editorials, op-eds and blogs. Opinion coverage was more or less evenly divided: 44% of opinion pieces favored soda taxes, 39% opposed the policies, and 17% took a mixed or unclear position. However, all nine editorials took an anti-tax position. News articles were evenly distributed across the year, but most of the opinion cover- age appeared directly before and after the elections: 70% appeared between September and November 2012, with 40% appearing in October alone. Tax proponents in Richmond made extensive use of the opinion space (including edi- torials and letters to the editor). By focusing their advocacy efforts primarily on the election period, public health advocates may have missed an opportunity to build on a groundswell of news coverage growing around sugar-sweetened beverage regulation that began earlier in the spring of 2012.