One of the traps we have gotten ourselves into, as a nation, is depending upon the fourth estate to perform in a credible and objective manner. I have always maintained, once journalists were given by-lines for reporting plain news objectivity got trashed. Editorial pages are meant for opinions and if more liberals are editorialists so be it. That should not be the case on the front page, however, but it has, lamentably, become so and to the detriment of our freedom. Editorial boards now seem to control the entire paper, what news is reported and how. I submit biased selective new reporting is harming our nation.
In the case of Romney, why are we so fixated on his personna and the fact that he leaves us sort of flat? Virtually everything Romney has undertaken he has accomplished with dignity, and competency and he even has done so without taking any compensation. We have a president who is a threat to our nation's very survival and who has all the snake charm qualities one could ask for. Should that not be enough for us?
Has competency completely been replaced by a toothy smile and programmed speechifying everyone should have been able to see through? Are we so fixated on charisma that we lose total sight of accomplishments?
Gingrich and Romney have a record of solid achievement when compared to Obama but the press and media would have us focus on minutia and the Republican candidates were dumb enough to allow themselves to become trapped into playing the 'gotcha game.'
If responsible spending is a basis for how one runs a government, Obama fails. If governance according to the Constitution is a basis for how America should be ruled, Obama fails. If America's position in the world matters then Obama's policies have failed. If protecting our nation by maintaining a strong defense and standing by allies still remains an important element of our foreign policy, then Obama fails. If telling the truth about where you want to take America still means a damn thing, then Obama fails and his tongue should be full of warts as it were. If appointing accomplished executives confirmed by the Senate still is the intent of our founders, then Obama fails.
It is time to focus on Obama because the playing field is rich with his failures.
The time has come for voters to try their best to be objective, forget partisanship and party and judge the various candidates on their merit if that is humanly possible. This means start thinking and reasoning for yourself and cease being brain dead and influenced by that which we read and hear. Again probably not humanly possible because we all have our own prejudices and they are very hard to shake - me included.
My point is, if there ever was a time for caring about our nation's future it is now and if that means personal 'change' then we should be willing to make the sacrifice because Obama's change is crippling America.! (See 1 below.)
---
John Wayne still alive but now resides in Arizona? (See 2 below.)
---
If only Syrians could vote would many still be alive? Is it all about being re-elected? More bowing and scraping ? What about justification because it is the right thing to do? Is that in Obama's alleged sharp turn equation? Is the basis of executing foreign policy always based on votes and money? Should it be? Where is that illusive concept called ' doing the virtuous and the humane because it is right!'
It is always possible I have misjudged Obama when it comes to Iran and Israel but my gut tells me be careful.
At Obama's first appearance at AIPAC, he told the audience America would relocate our embassy to Jerusalem. Politicians always tell the audience what they want to hear at these type meetings.
Not the first time Israel has been flimmed and flammed nor the first time Obama has ducked and weaved only to create the appearance but failed to follow through.
Two views and you decide!(See 3, 3a and 3b below.)
---
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvLZ-M_HS-w&feature=player_embedded
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Sheriff Arpaio's Posse Surprise
By Cindy SimpsonThe Tea Party members of Surprise, Arizona, were likely not surprised to learn that even America's Toughest Sheriff cannot fully break the shroud of secrecy and mystery surrounding Obama's long-form birth certificate. However, yesterday, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio proved once again that he didn't earn the moniker without reason.
As promised, Sheriff Arpaio held a press conference in Phoenix to announce the findings of his "Cold Case Posse." Organized last September at the request of the Surprise Tea Party members, the posse was assigned the primary task of verifying the authenticity of the copy of Obama's birth certificate released by the White House on April 27, 2011.
The stunning conclusion of the posse thus far: The document released by the White House is suspected to be a forgery, as is Obama's Selective Service card.
While not accusing Obama of any crime or wrongdoing, the posse revealed they have "probable cause" to believe that felonies have been committed -- fraud and forgery -- and asserted that those responsible should be brought to justice.
Headed by Michael Zullo, a retired police detective, and rounded out with two former law enforcement officers and two retired attorneys, the posse's work was entirely voluntary and operated at no cost to Maricopa County taxpayers.
At the press conference, Zullo explained that the posse examined numerous documents, interviewed many witnesses and experts, and obtained several sworn statements as part of its investigation. Zullo also presented a series of videos that explained and demonstrated in detail the key reasons for the posse's conclusions. In addition, Zullo revealed that his group has identified a "person of interest" in the alleged forgery. The posse did not, however, address the related question of Obama's eligibility as a "natural born" citizen under Article II of the Constitution.
"As I said at the beginning of the investigation, the president can put all this to rest quite easily. All he has to do is demand the Hawaii Department of Health release to the American public and to a panel of certified court-authorized forensic examiners all original 1961 paper, microfilm, and computer birth records the Hawaii Department of Health has in its possession."
Arpaio had assured us before: "I take my elected sheriff's status very serious and when the people ask me to do something, I try to do it regardless of the repercussions, the politics." He added: "And I don't have press conferences just to have my name on television."
At a recent Republican gathering in Phoenix, Arpaio told reporters: "I really started [the posse] on the theory that maybe I could clear this mess up...[w]ouldn't it be nice for me to do that?" The CNN Political Ticker blog also reported "Arpaio added he believes he is doing the president a favor."
The outspoken sheriff actually has a rather rocky history with this president and his administration. In a press release issued last September, following Obama's remarks about Arpaio at a White House Roundtable with Latino journalists on immigration and Arizona, the sheriff offered a similar remark:
"I enforce the law, including state and federal laws, because I took an oath of office as the elected Sheriff to do so. The President of the United States should understand that and applaud me for that effort, not criticize me."
But then a couple of months later in December, the Department of Justice released a 22-page report on its three-year investigation into Arpaio, and concluded his office maintained "a pervasive culture of discriminatory bias against Latinos" that "reaches the highest levels of the agency." Arpaio countered: "I do have compassion, but enforcing the law overrides my compassion."
In January, authorities arrested "Obama supporter" Adam Eugene Cox for his published death threats against Arpaio, purportedly driven by the Sheriff's investigation into Obama's birth certificate. Other death threats have been made against the sheriff by Mexican drug cartels, which allegedly have contracted close to $4 million for Arpaio's execution.
The President of La Raza, Janet Murguia, called Arpaio "America's worst sheriff" at a press conference in February. Stand with Arizona's John Hill documents the various organizations (many with ties to the Obama administration) and the millions of dollars of spending (some backed with federal grants) aimed at removing the sheriff from office.
Looking back on that chain of events since the formation of the posse, it seems that the attacks and criticism levied against Sheriff Arpaio have indeed been increasing. We can only speculate as to whether the escalation was the result of, or related to, that investigation. Some of the conservative media reporting of that pattern has created something of a Wild West legend of a heroic sheriff, willing to fight for the truth against all odds. For the most part, the rest of mainstream portrayed an overzealous lawman looking for vindication and Tea Party support for his reelection. For either storyline, no more perfect leading man than the famous Sheriff Joe could have been cast to deliver the tale's memorable lines.
Yesterday, we heard it straight from the star's lips -- complete with a no-nonsense John Wayne-style delivery -- that in the opinion of his office and the posse, the law has been broken.
WND live-streamed the press conference, and several other mainstream media organizations were also in attendance. Many of those same mainstream outlets witnessed the recent Georgia ballot challenge hearings, yet afterwards, all appeared to orchestrate a complete blackout of the spectacle. At the conclusion of yesterday's conference, reporters' frustrations with Arpaio, evident in the tone of most of their follow-up questions, found an equal match in the sheriff's answers.
It will be interesting to watch the response of the mainstream media and the Obama campaign in the days ahead: Will they sidestep, or spin, or simply turn their backs?
At the press conference, WND journalist Dr. Jerome Corsi reported that he had arranged on the evening prior, a private conference between the sheriff and conservative media champion Andrew Breitbart, and Corsi wondered whether it might have been Breitbart's last interview. As we mourn Breitbart's passing, we hope that his colleagues continue to pursue his inspiring legacy of boldness in uncovering and reporting the truth. At CPAC, Breitbart had assured attendees: "This election, we're going to vet [Obama]."
This investigation by fellow warrior Sheriff Arpaio demonstrates that we need other brave individuals willing to come forward and delve further back in Obama's history.
Thomas Jefferson once said: "When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property."
Like Sheriff Arpaio, Obama has assumed a public office. But while Obama shields the property of his history from public view, the question arises: Should the public trust Obama?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Pentagon prepares “aerial refueling” for Israeli planes striking Iran
Last-ditch bid fails to bridge US-Israeli differences
In a dramatic U-turn to show Israel that Washington is serious about its military option against Iran’s nuclear program, Pentagon officials disclosed Thursday, March 1, that “military options being prepared start with providing refueling for Israeli planes and include attacking the pillars of the clerical regime. They include the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and its elite Qods Force, regular Iranian military bases and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security." The officials spoke on condition of anonymity in Washington’s first public reference to possible joint military action with Israel against Iran.
Earlier, Israel asked the Obama administration to finally set red lines for Iran’s nuclear program and abandon its “shifting red lines” option, as well as spelling out US military contingencies instead of using the worn-out “all options are on the table” mantra.
Barring last-minute changes, US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will still be at profound cross purposes on Iran when they meet at the White House on March 5. Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak flew to Washington to try and work out with US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta Wednesday, Feb. 29 a formula for bridging the widening gap. Washington sources report that notwithstanding their smiling embraces, Barak flew straight back home to inform the prime minister they had failed.
Barring last-minute changes, US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will still be at profound cross purposes on Iran when they meet at the White House on March 5. Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak flew to Washington to try and work out with US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta Wednesday, Feb. 29 a formula for bridging the widening gap. Washington sources report that notwithstanding their smiling embraces, Barak flew straight back home to inform the prime minister they had failed.
While still airborne, Barak heard White House Spokesman Jay Carney further sharpen Obama’s current tone: “I think we have been clear about this – that any (Israeli) military action in that region threatens greater instability in the region, because Iran borders both Afghanistan and Iraq – we have civilian personnel in Iraq, we have military personnel as well as civilians in Afghanistan.”
Carney added “But our approach right now is to continue to pursue the diplomatic path that we’ve taken, combined with very aggressive sanctions.”
Senior American and Israeli officials said on Thursday, March 1 that this statement confirmed that the president had turned down two key Israeli requests:
1. To set final and absolute red lines for Iran’s nuclear program which, if crossed, would provide the grounds for the US and Israel to strike its nuclear sites. Israel maintains that Washington’s Iran policy can be summed up as “shifting red lines:” Whenever Iran moves ahead with another nuclear achievement, the US sets new “red lines” to avoid a confrontation. This enables Tehran to jump its nuclear program forward from one US “red line” to the next.
2. To stop reciting the mantra that “all options are on the table’ for stopping Iran gaining a nuclear weapon and moving on to more definite language for specifying American military contingencies. However, the attempt to formulate a new locution evaded the efforts of Panetta and Barak.
President Shimon Peres is due to meet President Obama Sunday, March 4 although the hour has not yet been set. Whether it takes place before or after the US President’s speech to the AIPAC (The American Israel Public Affairs Committee) National Convention opening that day in Washington is significant.
If it takes place after, it would mean that the Americans are no longer amenable to Israeli persuasion to give up their objections to an Israeli attack and they expect Jerusalem to respect the Obama administration’s demand to give sanctions and diplomatic pressure more time to persuade Iran’s leaders to pack up their nuclear weapon program.
Obama is waiting anxiously to see if the Iranians turn up for nuclear talks with the five UN Security Council permanent members and Germany in Istanbul next month. To meet one of their conditions for coming to the table, the US stalled on leading the West and Arab powers into military intervention to overthrow Syria’s Bashar Assad.
But even if Peres gets to see Obama before the AIPAC speech, there is not much he can do to persuade the US president to accept a compromise formula that would save his talks with Netanyahu from digging the rift between them on Iran still deeper.
Thursday, March 1, senior American sources listed the US-Israeli schedule for the coming days:
Thursday: Former US presidential adviser Dennis B. Ross holds a background briefing on US policy for Iran with American journalists. Although he holds no official White House position, Ross is considered sufficiently influential and well-informed to outline the next stages of the presidential Iran strategy.
Sunday, March 4: President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu both address the opening of the national AIPAC Convention in Washington. The extremely sensitive order of appearance has not yet been settled.
Jerusalem would rather Obama go first to give Netanyahu the chance to answer his comments. For that very reason, the Americans would prefer their president to follow the prime minister and so, in a manner of speaking, carve his policy in stone.
The White House is making every effort to make sure no public confrontation over Iran takes place between the American and Israeli leaders in their widely broadcast and televised appearances before an audience of some 14,000 Jewish delegates from across America.
Monday, March 5: The Obama-Netanyahu summit at the White House.
In interview with The Atlantic, U.S. President says Iran understands that U.S. attempts to halt its nuclear advancements have a 'military component,' adding, however, that he won't 'go around advertising exactly what our intentions are.'
By Haaretz
The Israeli people understand that the United States isn’t bluffing when it says "all options are on the table" in regards to actions against Iran's nuclear program, U.S. President Barack Obama said in an interview on Friday.
Get the latest updates on Iran's nuclear standoff with the West on Haaretz.com's official Facebook page
Obama's comments came as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrived in Canada on Friday, ahead of a North American visit that will also take him to a much-anticipated meeting with Obama at the White House.
Speaking to The Atlantic's Jeffery Goldberg at the White House, Obama referred to reports of Israeli demands that U.S. officials explicitly indicate the possibility of an American attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.
On the oft-repeated refrain "all options are on the table," and the contention that it represents a vague remark," Obama said "I think the Israeli people understand it, I think the American people understand it, and I think the Iranians understand it."
"It means a political component that involves isolating Iran; it means an economic component that involves unprecedented and crippling sanctions; it means a diplomatic component in which we have been able to strengthen the coalition that presents Iran with various options through the P-5 plus 1 and ensures that the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] is robust in evaluating Iran's military program; and it includes a military component. And I think people understand that," Obama said.
The U.S. president then added that he thought "the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff," adding, however, that he didn't, "as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are."
"But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say," Obama said, describing the reasons the Iranian threat was an important issue to his administration.
"In addition to the profound threat that it poses to Israel, one of our strongest allies in the world; in addition to the outrageous language that has been directed toward Israel by the leaders of the Iranian government -- if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, this would run completely contrary to my policies of nonproliferation," the U.S. president said, adding that the "risks of an Iranian nuclear weapon falling into the hands of terrorist organizations are profound."
"It is almost certain that other players in the region would feel it necessary to get their own nuclear weapons. So now you have the prospect of a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region in the world, one that is rife with unstable governments and sectarian tensions. And it would also provide Iran the additional capability to sponsor and protect its proxies in carrying out terrorist attacks because they are less fearful of retaliation," he added.
When asked by The Atlantic whether or not the Iranian nuclear program represented an issue advanced mainly by Israel and was not a genuine threat to the U.S., Obama said he felt Iran's nuclear ambitions were a global problem, adding that "when we travel around the world and make presentations about this issue, that's not how we frame it."
"We frame it as: this is something in the national-security interests of the United States and in the interests of the world community," Obama added, saying that he was confident that "Europe would not have gone forward with sanctions on Iranian oil imports -- which are very difficult for them to carry out because they get a lot of oil from Iran -- had it not been for their understanding that it is in the world's interest, to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon."
However, the U.S. president did reiterate the effectiveness of diplomatic pressure and economic sanctions on Iran's regime, saying that he pointed out to the Israeli leadership that "we have a sanctions architecture that is far more effective than anybody anticipated, that we have a world that is about as united as you get behind the sanctions; that our assessment, which is shared by the Israelis, is that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon and is not yet in a position to obtain a nuclear weapon without us having a pretty long lead time in which we will know that they are making that attempt."
"These are difficult questions, and again, if I were the prime minister of Israel, I'd be wrestling with them. As president of the United States, I wrestle with them as well," he added.
Obama also answered questions concerning his relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, adding that he thought it is absolutely true is that the prime minister and I come out of different political traditions."
"This is one of the few times in the history of U.S.-Israeli relations where you have a government from the right in Israel at the same time you have a center-left government in the United States, and so I think what happens then is that a lot of political interpretations of our relationship get projected onto this," he added.
But, he added, the "one thing that I have found in working with prime minister Netanyahu is that we can be very frank with each other, very blunt with each other, very honest with each other."
"For the most part, when we have differences, they are tactical and not strategic. Our objectives are a secure United States, a secure Israel, peace, the capacity for our kids to grow up in safety and security and not have to worry about bombs going off, and being able to promote business and economic growth and commerce. We have a common vision about where we want to go," the U.S. president added.
Finally, Obama warned of the possible ramifications of Iran's obtaining nuclear weapons, saying that if it did so, "I won't name the countries, but there are probably four or five countries in the Middle East who say, 'We are going to start a program and we will have nuclear weapons.'"
"And at that point, the prospect for miscalculation in a region that has that many tensions and fissures is profound. You essentially then duplicate the challenges of India and Pakistan fivefold or tenfold," he added.
3b)Can Israel Trust the United States When It Comes to Iran?
Yossi Klein HaleviMarch 2, 2012 | 12:00 am 32 comments
When Benjamin Netanyahu meets with Barack Obama on Monday, the main issue will be trust. Obama will ask that Israel trust America’s determination to stop Iran, and trust that when he says all options are on the table he means it. Netanyahu will likely be thinking about May 1967.
In late May 1967, Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol dispatched his foreign minister, Abba Eban, to Washington. Egyptian and Syrian troops were pressing on Israel’s borders; Egypt had imposed a naval blockade on the Straits of Tiran, Israel’s shipping route to the east. Eban’s request of President Lyndon Johnson was that America honor its commitment to back military action if Egypt blocked the Straits of Tiran. That commitment had been made by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles in 1957, to secure Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai desert following the 1956 Suez War. Only a declaration by Johnson that he intended to immediately open the straits to Israeli shipping even at the risk of war—one idea was for the U.S. to lead an international flotilla—could stop a unilateral Israeli strike. Though Johnson was viscerally pro-Israel, he proved unable or unwilling to honor Dulles’ commitment. Preoccupied with Vietnam, Johnson wasn’t ready to support another war, let alone initiate one.
Even if Barack Obama is truly the pro-Israel president his Jewish supporters claim he is, the Johnson precedent tells us that it may not matter. Like Johnson, Obama presides over a nation wary of another military adventure, especially in the Middle East. According to Israeli press reports, Netanyahu intends to ask Obama to state—beyond the vague formulation that all options are on the table—that the U.S. will use military force if Iran is about to go nuclear. But few here expect Obama to make that policy explicit.
What the world remembers of the Six Day War era is Israel’s military victory in June 1967. But these days Israelis are recalling the vulnerability of May 1967, in the weeks that preceded the victory.
To be sure, Israelis understand that, in several crucial ways, today is different from 1967. Then, Israel was entirely on its own in facing the threat on its borders. Today, by contrast, many countries, including in the Arab world, regard a nuclear Iran as a very real threat. In 1967, the war was localized, while this time the consequences of an Israeli preemptive strike will directly affect the international community and especially the United States—and perhaps not only economically. Iranian attacks against American targets—or Israeli difficulty in fighting a multi-front war—could draw America into conflict. And that could risk the stability of the American-Israeli relationship.
The Iranian nuclear threat could force Israel to choose between two of its essential national values. On the one hand, there is the commitment to Jewish self defense. On the other hand, there is the longing to be a respectable member of the international community. Allowing an enemy that constantly threatens Israel’s destruction to acquire the means to do so would negate Zionism’s promise to protect the Jewish people. And launching a preemptive strike without American backing could lead to Israel’s isolation and risk Zionism’s promise of restoring the Jews as a nation among nations.
In this excruciating dilemma, the question of whether Israel can trust the administration to act militarily against Iran becomes all the more crucial. Israeli leaders believe that their window of opportunity in launching a preemptive strike will be closing in the coming months. America, though, with its vastly superior firepower, could retain a military option even after Israel’s lapses. In other words: An Israeli decision not to strike this year will mean that it effectively ceded its self-defense—against a potentially existential threat—to America. When Obama tells Israel to give sanctions time, what he is really saying is: Trust me to stop Iran militarily when you no longer can.
Yet, the message from Washington in the last few weeks has only reinforced Israeli suspicions that we are back in May 1967. The spate of administration leaks to the media questioning Israel’s military capability in confronting Iran has undermined Israeli confidence in American resolve. An adminstration serious about stopping Iran to the point of military intervention would convey messages that raise Iran’s anxiety, not Israel’s. By insisting that Israel’s military threat isn’t credible – without at the same time explicitly stating that America’s military threat is—the administration reassures Iran that it has little to fear from military action. The Israelis can’t and the Americans won’t.
Then there was the comment by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, to the effect that Iran hasn’t yet decided to build a bomb. If Dempsey’s point was to reassure Israel, he managed the opposite. Dempsey reinforced a long-standing Israeli fear that the administration is prepared to live with nuclear ambiguity—that is, a situation in which Iran could quickly assemble a bomb while choosing for the time being not to. According to this scenario, Obama would negotiate an agreement that would allow him to claim he’d stopped Iran while in fact ensuring its nuclear capability. For Israel—and for Arab countries—that outcome would hardly differ from an explicitly nuclear Iran. In either case Tehran could credibly threaten Israel and blackmail the Arab world.
In the last few days, in anticipation of the Obama-Netanyahu meeting, Washington’s tone has finally begun to change. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that America’s goal is to prevent Iranian nuclear capability, period. And U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz announced that the Joint Chiefs of Staff have a detailed plan to strike Iranian nuclear sites should that become necessary.
While those statements help ease the tension between Washington and Jerusalem, they don’t go anywhere far enough. Israel needs a public, unambiguous warning from Obama to Iran that, if sanctions fail, America will use military force—that a nuclear Iran is as much a red line for this administration as, say, an Iranian blockade of the Straits of Hormouz. Only that kind of threat has the chance of restoring American credibility—not only for Israel, but also for the Arab world and, not least, for Iran.
Given that Obama is unlikely to make that threat, Israel will hope, at least, for a change in the administration’s signals about an Israeli strike. Iranian leaders need to hear from Obama that Israel has the right to defend itself against a nuclear threat.
And if that message, too, is not forthcoming? Faced with an imminent existential dilemma, Israel will probably opt for preemptive self-defense, even if that means risking its special relationship with America—a different kind of existential threat.
The precedent of the two Israeli attacks against Arab nuclear facilities—in Iraq in 1981 and in Syria in 2007—reinforces Israeli determination to stop Iran, unilaterally if necessary. Israel, after all, prevented a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein and a nuclear-armed Bashar Assad. And it did so without asking America’s permission. Yet the administration can credibly counter that in neither case did Israeli unilateralism threaten to draw America into an armed conflict, as it does now.
In the end the dilemma for both Israel and the U.S. isn’t only strategic but ethical. Israel has a moral responsibility not to surprise its closest friend with an initiative that could drastically affect American well-being. And the U.S. has a moral responsibility not to pressure its closest Middle East ally into forfeiting its right to self-defense against a potentially genocidal enemy.
In better times, the two allies might have been able to navigate these conflicting needs. But in the absence of mutual trust, what could remain are conflicting perceptions of interest.
Yossi Klein Halevi is a contributing editor for The New Republic and a fellow of the Engaging Israel Project of the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerualem. He is completing a book about the Israeli paratroopers who fought in Jerusalem in the Six Day War.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment