--- This from a long time dear friend and fellow memo reader. I e mailed back: "Someone has been looking over my shoulder - "Affirmative Action memo dated 8/25." (See 1 below.)
Another dear friend and memo reader just e mailed, upon receiving the memo about the Scotsman, that :"I thought you were weaning yourself off your blog.
Apparently, you just can’t help yourself."
I responded I am like a Dalmatian. When the bell rings I got to go."
My friend then responded: " of the Pavlovian variety. "
And finally, this from another long time friend and fellow memo reader who lives in California and was responding to the posting regarding baby sitter legislation:"Regarding my insane state (article 2A): There was an initial version of the bill that even required paid vacation for babysitters, etc. The inmates are running the asylum in California."
I admit I love to write, to express my thoughts and to engage in challenging discourse but I also have had the luxury of time because I took it from others.
When someone you love needs your time, and always actually did, you must respond. Adjusting to competing demands is a new experience and I will make the proper adjustment and that is why memos will be more sporadic. But hopefully no less incisive.
My wife is out to lunch with the girls and is making progress..
---
As previously noted I am reading "The Secret Knowledge." David Mamet explains the parting of The Red Sea in a fascinating way. The message he derives is that life is divisible into good and evil, moral and immoral, sacred and profane, permitted and forbidden etc.. Slaves cannot make that distinction. Their behaviour is circumscribed by their masters. Free people have choice.
The Red Sea, for the Jews, meant freedom - freedom to make choices. Mamet castigates those Jews who denounce Israel because Israel, to them, is imperfect but, Mamet points out, Man is imperfect.
He then discusses the Left in the context of his view of The Exodus . The Left embrace Socialism and thus have the herd mentality that slavery offers, ie the incalculable benefit of freedom from thought. Consequently, Israel poses an incurable affront to those who are caused grief by Israel's existence for Israelis have chosen the path of freedom.
The left has a pathological desire to embrace government and to surrender choice, to embrace Statism and Government Rule. they reject the lesson of Exodus. Theirs is a regression not to the tribe but to the herd.
Powerful statements and argument against the yellow road of surrender the Left chooses to walk down versus the road of choice and freedom with all its various encumbrances and risks.
Mamet uses his early Chicago years as an entry into his formative thinking about politicians, government and how, he believes, we conceive the world not through indoctrination but through cultural osmosis.
After living under Chicago 'Mob/Boss' Rule, Mamet concluded early on government would take care of you as well as you took care of it. He also poses which system - Free Enterprise, or the State - is better able to correct itself and has no problem concluding the former. Why? Because individuals constrained by competition and seeking wealth are constantly trying to improve.
Mamet asks the reader to picture bureaucrats sitting behind their desk thinking of how to improve the system, how the system can deliver better service at lower cost when there is no pressure to do so and even the prospect of losing ones job if they even think that way.
He also asserts nothing is free. All human interaction involves trade offs. The key is for free individuals to limit the State at that point at which power is reserved only for application in those cases, specified in law, where an individual or group abridges the liberty of others.
Mamet fears our once productive nation has been spiraling downward. Obama is simply speeding the process towards Socialism and what Obama espouses, as change, is no more complex than robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Stop and think about this. Why did Cubans, who fled Castro and were prosperous prior to Castro, prosper again when they got to Florida while those Cubans remaining in Cuba and living under Castro's government languish.
Another thought - Government produces nothing but waste and the price is generally not paid by the consumer of the product that does not exist but by the victim of government - the taxpayer.
Carry this one step further and realize Obama proposes to take over our health care and wants a system that produces nothing but waste and that is designed to benefit those who do not pay for it to be in charge of the decision process. This is insanity and yet this is where we are heading.
When it comes to Israel and the attitude of Liberal Jews and Liberals in general, Mamet answers rhetorically if a plane was going to Israel and one was going to Syria most, if not all, would select the plane to Israel. That said, then Mamet does not understand when Liberals align themselves with Palestinians and or Arab/Muslim terrorists when Israel wants peace and the Arab/Muslim World wants Israel's total annihilation.
Mamet does not ignore the fact that Israel makes mistakes. As noted earlier he acknowledges man is not perfect. He simply does not understand why anyone would support those who want destruction of those who want to live in peace.
The Liberal dilemma, vis a vis Israel, according to Mamet, is they are forced to choose, to weigh rationally two positions and to base their choice upon an honest assessment of their own probable actions. In essence the Liberal is being asked to be moral and alas the cost is generally too high a price for one living in that vaulted and highly sophisticated world of relativism.
Short of surrender it might be impossible for Liberals to comprehend that some conflicts cannot be solved peaceably.
The only way the Liberal desire to achieve peace is possible is for Israelis to leave their country. Since land for peace has proven a false hope, resulting in land for more conflict, Mamet minces no words in concluding this type of thinking is anti-Semitic. OUCH!!!
As for Western media and news treatment of Israel, Mamet offers the reported 'Rape of Jenin', subsequently proven as trumped up staged theatre, as evidence that Palestinian victim hood, at the supposed hands of Israelis, is simply 'news' entertainment and anything that diminishes the entertainment value, ie. truth, must be treated as a threat. OUCH AGAIN!!!
Mamet also takes a dig at Michelle Obama, who stated she was incapable of being proud of America until her husband became president obviously ignoring the 360,000 Union solders who died in order to free the nation of slavery. DOUBLE OUCH!!!
Mamet continues on his merry way claiming it is not the absence of government but the rejection of culture which leads to anarchy. And he continues- Liberals are destroying our culture by suspending reason and accountability. It is not that they do not care but rather they cannot afford to notice for to do so would mean rejection from the herd. Thus, in submerging their doubts and forgetting them they surrender to reason.
For the Left,Government is the water in which they swim and is the underlying belief in their lives. ( I might parenthetically add, while Liberals swim in their chosen fluid the rest of us are drowning from the consequences.) Liberalism is the religion which has replaced religion as once noted by Norman Podhoretz.
Mamet, like Amity Schlaes, takes FDR to task for saddling our nation with social programs which prolonged and deepened the depression and left us with a legacy that when a social program fails- expand it..
Time and again empirical evidence proves curtailment of freedom leads to shortages, famine, oppression and ultimately disaster. Yet, while the Left rails against corporate management abuse of power and distancing themselves from stockholders they dare not bring the same charge against bloated government and its many failures. Again, to do so would be heretic and might result in abandonment by the herd..
When it comes to Obama and how voters fawned over him and lofted him, Mamet draws an analogy with a stroked penis coming to its extended length. (In a word, does Mamet suggest Obama is a schmuck without saying so?)
And as for Jane Fonda, he likens her trip to Hanoi to a safari in Africa where she would have railed at big guns used to kill elephants but applauded the Viet Cong for using anti-aircraft weapons to kill citizens of her own country – the same country she knew she could return to protected by her stardom. The same country which she had villainized by her traitorous behaviour. HUZZAH MAMET!!!
But Mamet does not stop there. He also has Czars in his sights pointing out they are absolute rulers and their appointment is akin to magical thinking. Obama has created a Cabinet of spiritualists. Whereas spiritualists and politicians are essentially magicians - the former offer diversion, the latter security in exchange for suspension of common sense. But upon examination both have accomplished next to nothing credible because a nation cannot grow richer through government re-distribution of already achieved wealth.
Mamet also takes Obama to the woodshed for, though acknowledging cutting taxes creates jobs, he proceeds selectively because of the political benefits. If cutting taxes increases employment then why not cut all taxes, Mamet asks?
As for the effectiveness of government Mamet asserts no organization can be made more efficient by adding to its bulk and it is magical thinking to believe you can award the State non-Constitutional powers, correctly deemed notorious when exercised by the individual. Why? Because first and foremost the task of law in a democracy is not to right individual wrongs but to ensure that no one suffers because of the State!
I am only half way through but the gem quality of Mamet’s thinking and his reason for conversion keep showing up at the turn of every page. The logic of his argument and the clear examples he cites are jewel like.
I recommend this book to all who, like Mamet, still remain Liberal but cannot explain why except to regurgitate GW, Palin , Climate Change, Abortion and Tea Party etc. when their precious failed ideas are exposed to reasoned sunlight.
I will happily have more comments as I complete Mamet's book.
---
Meanwhile, Mort Zuckerman continues to write lengthy articles about Obama's shortcomings. (See my abbreviation of his thoughts in 2 below.)
---
For those who believe God's hand works in mysterious ways is it possible Turkey is going into a bad economic spell at a propitious and critical time? (See 3 and 3a below.)
---
Economic determinism? In a Capitalistic Society does who earns the bucks says something about piorities? (See 4 below.)
---
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Obama: The Affirmative Action President
By Matt Patterson
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as legislator.
And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:
To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.
Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass -- held to a lower standard -- because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues:
And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon -- affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin -- that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama.
True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois ; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?
In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people -- conservatives included -- ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth -- it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
But hey, at least we got to feel good about ourselves for a little while. And really, isn't that all that matters these days?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Zuckerman: Obama 'Unable to Get A Firm Grip' on Economy
By Julie Crawshaw
President Barack Obama just doesn't get that his lack of leadership has shaped our stalled economy, says U.S. News and World Report editor Mort Zuckerman.
"Mr. Obama seems unable to get a firm grip on the toughest issue facing his presidency and the country—the economy," Zuckerman writes in The Wall Street Journal.
"He now asserts he is going to "pivot" to jobs. Now we pivot to jobs? When there are already 25 million Americans who are either unemployed or cannot find full-time work?"
"Does this president not appreciate what is going on?"
Fewer Americans are working full-time today than when Mr. Obama took office, Zuckerman notes, more than 900,000 full-time jobs were lost in the last four months alone, and long-term unemployment is at a post-World War II high.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3) Turkey's sharp economic downswing undercuts its regional status
In another maneuver to make trouble between Washington and Jerusalem, the Turkish Hurriyet carried a made-up story accusing US Republican sources of leaking a UN Report which maintained Israel's Gaza's blockade - and therefore its interception of a Turkish vessel and flotilla in May 2010 – was legal. The report, leaked to the New York Times Friday, Sept. 9, also criticized Israeli commandos for excessive force for defending themselves in a clash which led to the deaths of nine "peace activists" aboard the ship.
The report was commissioned by the UN Secretary General from a panel headed by former New Zealand Prime Minister Sir Jeffrey Palmer.
Hurriyet charged that the Palmer report was leaked to the NYT by the same friends of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu who arranged his speech last May to the two Houses of Congress.
The Turkish newspaper's spiteful claim was slanted to upset President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who have been trying to mend the Ankara-Jerusalem breach, and justify the fury of Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and his foreign minister Ahmed Davutoglu at being caught in the wrong by the UN panel (which accused them of not doing enough to prevent the violence and the flotilla's "reckless" mission).
Friday, Ankara expelled the Israeli ambassador, suspended defense contracts with Jerusalem, announced legal action against senior Israeli figures in European courts, threatened to bring the dispute before the international court and “take measures for freedom of maritime movement in the Mediterranean.”
Israel continued to brush off the Turkish ultimatum to apologize for the nine deaths and end the Gaza blockade. Hurriyet quoted an unnamed Israeli official as replying: "They can go to hell. They will see what respecting international maritime law means when… our navy sails into the international waters of the Mediterranean."
US sources state the Erdogan government's outpouring of vindictive misinformation with a view to upsetting relations between the Obama administration and the Israeli government would cut no ice. Mixing in American domestic politics to misdirect its international crises was a dangerous game.
The Turkish Navy, they added, is no match for Israeli missile boat technology and their electronic jamming and tracking systems. Neither do the Turks have advanced submarines like Israel's German-made Dolphins or close air cover.
US sources following the dispute also dismissed as hollow Davutoglu's follow-up threat Saturday, Sept. 3: "If Israel persists with its current position," he warned, "the Arab spring will give rise to a strong Israel opposition as well as the debate on the authoritarian regimes."
Washington sources condemned such statements as beyond the acceptable diplomatic bounds. "It sounds as though Ankara is threatening to stir up the Palestinian and Israeli Arab populations against the Israeli government and army. If that's what Davutoglu meant to say, Turkey is sailing very close to the wind and risks President Obama and European governments suspending their participation in NATO operations in the Middle East.
Should Israel complain to the UN Security Council about Turkish war threats and the incitement to revolt by one UN member against another, Western powers would vote for a resolution of condemnation against Turkey.
Washington sources and various European capitals warn the unbridled vendetta Erdogan and his foreign minister are waging against Israel will boomerang against them. Early Sunday, Sept. 4, an American official proposed "calling their bluff." He disclosed Turkey may try and act as though it calls the shots as the leading Middle East diplomatic and economy, with enough leverage over the the Arab uprisings to channel their fury against Israel. However, Turkey is far from being on solid ground. Indeed, he reveals, economically Turkey is no better than a paper tiger, hiding a galloping crisis behind its anti-Israel rhetoric:
1. Ankara's published impressive GDP growth rate of 11 percent is artificially inflated by out-of-control credit pumped out by its central bank to create a short-term bubble. In fact, Turkey is fast sliding into deep economic slump. Its current account deficit has reached almost the same crisis level as those of Greece and Portugal and its currency faces devaluation.
Last week, Turkey's military chiefs, traditional guardians of the country's secular constitution, resigned in a body in protest against the imprisonment of scores of high-ranking officers for allegedly plotting against the government.
Erdogan is therefore locked into the twin crisis of a failing economy and a deep rift within his administration. US and European intelligence circles wonder about his ability to govern for much longer. They are concerned that he may drum up a military clash between the Turkish and Israel navies to distract popular attention from the troubles besetting his country. " For the Turkish prime minister, that would be a no-win road," said those sources.
2. They also criticized as unwise the Turkish foreign minister's implied threat to bring the Arab Revolt to Israel's doorstep. He would be better advised, they said, to deal with the far more palpable danger of the Syrian uprising spilling over into Turkey.
3a)New Ottomanism Taps the Palestinian Venue
By Yisrael Ne'eman
Everyone promised September was to be an interesting month in the Middle East and there are no disappointments so far. Libya is shaping up for its last battles with Qadaffi forces, unrest continues in Syria, Egypt is said to have elections, the Palestinians are expected to declare their state with UN support and Israel on Saturday night had its largest socio-economic protest demonstration ever. But the biggest crisis is brewing with PM Recip Tayyip Erdogen's Turkey. Ankara expelled the Israeli ambassador when Jerusalem refused to apologize for the deaths of nine Islamist IHH Islamist activists during last year's attempt by the Turkish registered Mavi Marmara to break the Israeli naval blockade of the Gaza Strip. The UN investigated and its Palmer Report declared the blockade "legal" while chiding Israel for using excessive force by its naval commandos when seizing control of the vessel. The report also cast doubt on the innocence of the IHH militants.
Over the past year Israel and Turkey engaged in talks to clear up the issues but to no avail. Israel was willing to express regret over the loss of life but refused to issue an apology. The Turks are furious, sent Israel's ambassador packing (there is no Turkish ambassador in Tel Aviv), are threatening a full break in diplomatic relations, have stated in general that Ankara supports the national rights of all peoples in the region and are considering turning to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague to declare Israel's blockade of Gaza illegal. Two points before moving on: Do the Turks include the Kurds when speaking of the rights of all peoples? And if so why the Turkish intensification of attacks against them in southeast part of the country and bombings of Kurdish forces in northern Iraq? Continuing in the same vein, will the Turks acknowledge the rights of Greek Cypriots to full independence and end their occupation of northern Cyprus begun in 1974? As for the second point, the International Court can be expected to side with Ankara against Israel no matter what the evidence and in spite of what the Palmer Report advises.
Turkish foreign policy in the last several years can be described as a new Ottomanism – an attempt to re-unify the Middle East around a bold activist Turkish outreach. Call it a throwback to the 400 years of Ottoman imperial sway in the Middle East (and the Balkans) but without military conquest. Only a few years ago Erdogen hoped to rally the Sunni Arab states around the Turkish lead (hegemony?) said to be for the benefit of all. Obviously neither Israel, the Kurds nor the Cypriots can fit into such a scheme but to succeed would be a major diplomatic, regional and global success for Ankara. The Iranians are also a problem, Erdogen preferring to keep them engaged with one hand while holding them off with the other. Since the beginning of 2011 his policy became more of a shambles with each passing month. Tunisia, Egypt and Libya faced uprisings while the nurtured ally, Bashar Assad's Syria, is repressing its citizenry with overwhelming military force, bringing condemnation not only by the West, but by Erdogen himself.
The Palestinians remain the only real flashpoint whereby the Turks can score points, yet here the Turkish leadership, themselves considered "moderate" Islamists, must decide between the Jihadist Hamas in Gaza or the secular western leaning Palestinian Authority led by Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria). The Turks want both. Contradictions do exist since Hamas fully opposes a permanent two-state solution and will accept only a "hudna" or Islamic cease-fire for a specified amount of time and then proceed to Israel's destruction. Abbas is said to be committed to a two-state solution attesting to Israel's legitimacy, but the conditions for such are still to be negotiated – most importantly the Palestinian demand for full refugee return, including descendents, leading to Israel's practical destruction as a Jewish State. It is just not clear if the PLO/Fatah would agree to recognition of Israel's legitimate right to national expression as the nation state of the Jewish People.
The Turks are apparently gearing up to support both Palestinian movements simultaneously, they are insisting on breaking the naval blockade on Gaza and can be expected to begin a diplomatic offensive in demand of Palestinian statehood within the framework of the two-state solution. Israel as the adversary of both Hamas and the PLO is a unifying "bad guy" and here the Turks have an opportunity to gain influence with both the Islamic and more secular nationalist Palestinian movements at the same time. Ankara's policy is to outmaneuver and then lead the Arab world. Egypt is still hunting Islamist terrorists in Sinai whether they be Hamas, the Islamic Jihad or Al-Qaeda types while the Jordanian regime wants moderation for all, fearing for its own stability. Turkey no longer has a Syrian policy, the pro-Iranian Assad regime being so brutal that Erdogen can find little common ground with them and is demanding regime change, one that may bring the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and should that be so, an accompanying civil conflict/war. In Iraq Turkish moves are interpreted as anti-Kurdish and not particularly pro-Shiite as that religious faction generally leans more towards Iran.
Supporting the Palestinian client at the expense of Israel scores points in the Arab World. The risk is minimal, none will oppose the move. The question is "How far to go?" Breaking diplomatic relations with Israel and projecting a naval show of force in the Mediterranean will be bad enough but what options does Israel have should Erdogen decide to send the Turkish navy to breech the internationally legal Gaza blockade and/or decide on a visit himself to the Strip as he has threatened to do on occasion. How would he get there? Would he pass through the border crossing at Rafiah or prefer one of the tunnels? (And how would the Egyptians feel about this?) Or would he be part of a Turkish naval flotilla on its way to Gaza? Israel would need to decide whether to physically confront the Turkish navy with PM Erdogen on board, or not. Either way Jerusalem loses, at least in the short run.
The Erdogen government backed itself into a corner with the failed new Ottoman foreign policy initiative at the time of Arab World uprisings. To be fair, they like everyone else were surprised and cannot be blamed as such. They did however overplay their hand with the Mavi Marmara by acting as its patron. Hoping to get an Israeli apology and the lifting of the Gaza blockade never happened and now Ankara finds itself limited with one way out, the Palestinian route at Israel's great expense. Not that this appears to be such a terrible option.
Could such an outcome have been avoided by Israel? Apparently the Americans worked on a formula with a less than full apology, PM Netanyahu was inclined to accept but Foreign Minister Leiberman and others persuaded him to decline. But even with such an apology and compensation for those killed the Turks continued to insist on Israel's lifting of the Gaza blockade. Would they have backed down in light of an agreement? Most are doubtful but it certainly would have been more difficult for the Turks to press their claims on the diplomatic front and appeal to the ICJ in The Hague. Internationally the case would be seen as closed although Erdogen could push an adversarial line whenever he deemed it necessary. Any which way this scenario would turn out leaves Israel as the loser.
Now the question is one of degree. How much will Israel lose in its relationship with the Turks and as a result much of the Arab/Muslim World. Defending one's sovereignty has its costs and at times payment must be made. But the Turks are also exposed. Their NATO allies and especially the US may attempt to call them to order and/or begin a re-evaluation of policy towards the "moderate" Islamic regime in Ankara. They too may have an outstanding bill to settle, but only after the dust settles in the more distant future.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Salary of retired US Presidents .............$180,000 FOR LIFE
Salary of House/Senate .......................$174,000 FOR LIFE
Salary of Speaker of the House ............$223,500 FOR LIFE
Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders ...... $193,400 FOR LIFE
Average Salary of a teacher ................ $40,065
Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN AFGHANISTAN $38,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment