Blake The Ski-Boy!
Why Are So Many Americans in Prison? | PragerU
And:
China is Flooding Facebook with Ads Blaming Trump For The Coronavirus - Read More
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++This is how a Communist nation koshers's itself and just another reason why we should leave the corrupted U.N. and tell them to move to China. New York would save a fortune in protection costs and the income from freed up parking spaces could fund the purchase of needed health care equipment.
https://www.dailywire.com/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is something fishy and are we the ones who are batty? A dear friend and fellow memo read who has access to those in DC who are knowledgeable said: The Virus came from a lab in Wuhan, the Chinese cover up was intentional and the bat was released from the lab and found its way into the wet market.
*SOMETHING IS FISHY!!*Wuhan to Shanghai = 839kmWuhan to Beijing = 1,152kmWuhan to Milan = 15,000kmWuhan to NY = 15,000kmThe Coronavirus started in Wuhan yet there is no effect of Coronavirus in nearby Beijing or Shanghai but many deaths in Italy, Iran, European countries and USA.All business areas of China are now safe.*Something is fishy.*America is not just blaming China without a reason.Even today, India is locked down but all the cities of China are open. China has also announced the opening of Wuhan from April 08. Not a single leader in China has tested positive for the deadly Coronavirus.*Something is fishy.*The virus has ruined many economies around the world. Many have had to close their borders in an attempt to contain and control the spread of the Coronavirus. Thousands have lost their lives, millions have now got this disease, countless people have been locked in their homes and many countries have placed their citizens on lock down.*Something is fishy.*The Coronavirus orginated from the city of Wuhan in China and has now reached every corner of the world, but the virus did not reach China's capital Beijing and China's Economic Capital Shanghai, located in close proximity to Wuhan itself.*Something is fishy*Today Paris is closed, New York is closed, Berlin is closed, Delhi is closed, Mumbai is closed, Tokyo is closed, the world's major economic and political centers are closed, but Beijing and Shanghai are open. No Coronavirus effect is seen in either cities. There were only a few cases but the virus had no real effect on Beijing and Shanghai.*Something is fishy.*Beijing is the city where all the leaders of China live, including their military leaders. There is no lock down in Beijing.*Something is fishy*Shanghai is the city that runs China's economy. It is the economic capital of China, where all the rich people of China live and run major industries. There is no lock down here, there is no effect of the Coronavirus there.*Something is fishy*Beijing and Shanghai are the areas adjoining Wuhan. The virus from Wuhan reached every corner of the world, but the virus did not affect Beijing and Shanghai.*Something is fishy*Another big thing is, that the worldwide share market has fallen by almost half. In India also the Nifty has gone from 12 thousand to 7 thousand, but the share market of China was at 3000 and just merely dropped to 2700.*Something is fishy*This leaves one to speculate that the Coronavirus is a bio-chemical weapon of China, which China used to carry out destruction in the world in order to gain economic supremacy.China has now put this virus under control, maybe they also have the antidote/ vaccine that they are not sharing with the world ever or will do when it is in their best interest to do so.*Something is fishy*Hollywood stars, Australia's Home Minister, Britain's Prime Minister and Health Minister, Spain's Prime Minister's wife, Canada's Prime Minister's wife, and Britain's Prince Charles, among others, have contracted the Coronavirus, but NOT A SINGLE POLITICAL LEADER IN CHINA, NOT A SINGLE MILITARY COMMANDER in China have tested positive for Coronavirus.*SOMETHING IS FISHY!!!!*
Also:
Timing is everything.
Trump is being blamed for being distracted by Democrats who had nothing better to do than waste taxpayer money on a pursuit their own members caused because they hate the man who beat them.
The American Spectator: “The Impeachment That Killed Americans
Instead of dealing with the virus, Democrats in Congress (plus Romney) focused on getting Trump.
By Jeffrey Lord
Instead of dealing with the virus, Democrats in Congress (plus Romney) focused on getting Trump.
By Jeffrey Lord
“The lethal price tag for the months of the Impeach Trump obsession by Democrats is now in — and rising.
Over there at Breitbart, Joel Pollak, one of the serious journalists of the day, has put together this telling timeline that shows exactly what Democrats were doing as the coronavirus loomed. Here’s the link to Joel’s story — and here’s his very revealing timeline:
January 11: Chinese state media report the first known death from an illness originating in the Wuhan market.
January 15: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) holds a vote to send articles of impeachment to the Senate. Pelosi and House Democrats celebrate the “solemn” occasion with a signing ceremony, using commemorative pens.
January 21: The first person with coronavirus arrives in the United States from China, where he had been in Wuhan.
January 23: The House impeachment managers make their opening arguments for removing President Trump.
January 23: China closes off the city of Wuhan completely to slow the spread of coronavirus to the rest of China.
January 30: Senators begin asking two days of questions of both sides in the president’s impeachment trial.
January 30: The World Health Organization declares a global health emergency as coronavirus continues to spread.
January 31: The Senate holds a vote on whether to allow further witnesses and documents in the impeachment trial.
January 31: President Trump declares a national health emergency and imposes a ban on travel to and from China. Former Vice President Joe Biden calls Trump’s decision “hysterical xenophobia … and fear-mongering.”
February 2: The first death from coronavirus outside China is reported in the Philippines.
February 3: House impeachment managers begin closing arguments, calling Trump a threat to national security.
February 4: President Trump talks about coronavirus in his State of the Union address; Pelosi rips up every page.
February 5: The Senate votes to acquit President Trump on both articles of impeachment, 52-48 and 53-47.
February 5: House Democrats finally take up coronavirus in the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia.
And there, in black and white, is exactly the problem. Republicans at the time warned that Democrats were so mindlessly obsessed with impeachment that other issues were being routinely ignored. Immigration, trade, health care, and on and on went the list of concerns that were being ignored in favor of the impeachment obsession.
But there was another issue Democrats were ignoring while they spent their time impeaching the president. A very, very big issue that involved life or death.
The American Spectator’s Dov Fischer took it head on right here. His title:
‘The Real Threat to Our Democracy During Coronavirus
Pelosi, Schiff & Co. were too busy dragging the country through impeachment to pay attention to ominous developments in Asia.‘
Dov Fischer nailed it exactly.
Yes, indeed, while all that impeachment obsession was happening, the coronavirus was making its debut. Note well in the Pollak timeline this date — January 11, the day that ‘Chinese state media report the first known death from an illness originating in the Wuhan market.’
And with that virus news out there, a mere four days later, Speaker Pelosi focuses not on that — but on holding the House vote that impeaches the president, followed by an elaborately staged spectacle in which she signs her name to the documents with a stash of 30 gold pens resting on a silver tray. Then, in another elaborately staged spectacle, she formally parades the articles through the halls of the Capitol to deliver them to the Senate.
Then there is January 21, a full 10 days after news of the virus has gone public — and the first known person who had been in Wuhan arrives in America. Carrying the virus. Two days later Pollak notes this:
January 23: The House impeachment managers make their opening arguments for removing President Trump.
January 23: China closes off the city of Wuhan completely to slow the spread of coronavirus to the rest of China.
And not to be forgotten: on January 31, President Trump announced this, per the Washington Post:
‘Trump administration announces mandatory quarantines in response to coronavirus - Announcement comes as U.S. airlines cancel flights to China amid growing fears’
Mere days later, on February 4, President Trump delivered his State of the Union address, in which he said this:
‘Protecting Americans’ health also means fighting infectious diseases. We are coordinating with the Chinese government and working closely together on the coronavirus outbreak in China. My administration will take all necessary steps to safeguard our citizens from this threat.‘
And the reaction to that speech from the Pelosi Democrats?
Famously, when the president reached the end of his speech, Speaker Nancy Pelosi ostentatiously stood and ripped the speech in half. That doesn’t count the Democrat members who made a point of walking out on the speech or labeling it, as Pelosi did, a ‘pack of lies.’
But at last, the next day, February 5, the impeachment drama ended as it was known to end months earlier — with the president’s acquittal. And only then, a full 26 days after the virus was made public, and a full 16 days after it had arrived in America, did House Democrats get around to a same-day hearing on the virus that had been metastasizing for almost a month while they made the country focus on impeachment.
Let’s say that again.
There is the president of the United States, having days earlier quite publicly restricted travel from China — which he was attacked by Democrats for doing — now specifically using his State of the Union speech to issue a warning about the coronavirus and saying that his ‘administration will take all necessary steps to safeguard our citizens from this threat.’
Pelosi’s contemptuous response was to tear up the speech — calling it a ‘pack of lies.’ Now, the virus she and her colleagues had so blatantly ignored in favor of impeachment has now spread and resulted in, as this is written, 94 dead Americans.
The question now: When will Pelosi and Adam Schiff and the impeachment Democrats be held accountable for such an incredibly gross politicization of a deadly serious global pandemic, a politicization that held the U.S. government and the lives of Americans effectively hostage while they played impeachment politics — an impeachment politics that has now proved fatal to almost a hundred Americans?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The first time I posted Caldwell's article in the previous memo I made no comment because I wanted it to sink in for those who read it as they should have.
I believe this is one of the most insightful opinion articles I have read in a longtime. The author links things together from the '60's and beyond that go a long way toward explaining how America got off the tracks. I fear the Caronavirus will create another bad lurch for America because after a crisis cooler heads do not always prevail. Worse, legislation passed is taken over by the bureaucrats, as Caldwell explains, and they are allowed the place their imprimatur on an entire nation and get away with it.
Those who believe in more government generally win because ,were it not for our centralized Federal government, we would never be able to coordinate what it took to confront, and hopefully end, the effect of this virus. I have said before, and I repeat, Bernie Sanders could not have been more effective institutionalizing Socialism had he become president. Why? Because the government is engaged in spending trillions implementing his goals. It is doing so out of necessity but the effect will linger and become part of the post Coronavirus America just as the Civil Right's battle led to our Second Constitution per the author's belief, which I share.
Affirmative Action became a driving force to rectify a wrong but it too was wrong in the many ways it was implemented. Allowing blacks to gain rights at the expense of society to rectify wrongs has also proven wrong and created an America with rights taken by stilling the rights of others. We are now a more divided nation and we got there by by trying to knit together a divided nation and, in the end, we widened the gap and find ourselves at each other's throats.
Shocking events have a way of altering courses and I believe Civil Rights Legislation's, time had come and was right but the way we implemented it and hung corrective methods on the tree of justice were mostly wrong. Busing wrecked our education system, Political Correctness allowed insanity to rule the direction and consequence of laws to bring about justice and Civil Rights certainly abused more people's rights than the numbers of peoples it was intended to help.
Hell is paved with good intentions.
The Roots of Our Partisan Divide
BY: Christopher Caldwell
American society today is divided by party and by ideology in a way it has perhaps not been since the Civil War. I have just published a book that, among other things, suggests why this is. It is called The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties. It runs from the assassination of John F. Kennedy to the election of Donald J. Trump. You can get a good idea of the drift of the narrative from its chapter titles: 1963, Race, Sex, War, Debt, Diversity, Winners, and Losers.
I can end part of the suspense right now—Democrats are the winners. Their party won the 1960s—they gained money, power, and prestige.
The GOP is the party of the people who lost those things.
One of the strands of this story involves the Vietnam War. The antiquated way the Army was mustered in the 1960s wound up creating a class system. What I’m referring to here is the so-called student deferment. In the old days, university-level education was rare. At the start of the First World War, only one in 30 American men was in a college or university, so student deferments were not culturally significant. By the time of Vietnam, almost half of American men were in a college or university, and student deferment remained in effect until well into the war. So if you were rich enough to study art history, you went to Woodstock and made love. If you worked in a garage, you went to Da Nang and made war. This produced a class division that many of the college-educated mistook for a moral division, particularly once we lost the war. The rich saw themselves as having avoided service in Vietnam not because they were more privileged or—heaven forbid—less brave, but because they were more decent.
Another strand of the story involves women. Today, there are two cultures of American womanhood—the culture of married women and the culture of single women. If you poll them on political issues, they tend to differ diametrically. It was feminism that produced this rupture. For women during the Kennedy administration, by contrast, there was one culture of femininity, and it united women from cradle to grave: Ninety percent of married women and 87 percent of unmarried women believed there was such a thing as “women’s intuition.” Only 16 percent of married women and only 15 percent of unmarried women thought it was excusable in some circumstances to have an extramarital affair. Ninety-nine percent of women, when asked the ideal age for marriage, said it was sometime before age 27. None answered “never.”
But it is a third strand of the story, running all the way down to our day, that is most important for explaining our partisan polarization. It concerns how the civil rights laws of the 1960s, and particularly the Civil Rights Act of 1964, divided the country. They did so by giving birth to what was, in effect, a second constitution, which would eventually cause Americans to peel off into two different and incompatible constitutional cultures. This became obvious only over time. It happened so slowly that many people did not notice.
Because conventional wisdom today holds that the Civil Rights Act brought the country together, my book’s suggestion that it pulled the country apart has been met with outrage. The outrage has been especially pronounced among those who have not read the book. So for their benefit I should make crystal clear that my book is not a defense of segregation or Jim Crow, and that when I criticize the long-term effects of the civil rights laws of the 1960s, I do not criticize the principle of equality in general, or the movement for black equality in particular.
What I am talking about are the emergency mechanisms that, in the name of ending segregation, were established under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These gave Washington the authority to override what Americans had traditionally thought of as their ordinary democratic institutions. It was widely assumed that the emergency mechanisms would be temporary and narrowly focused. But they soon escaped democratic control altogether, and they have now become the most powerful part of our governing system
How Civil Rights Legislation Worked
There were two noteworthy things about the civil rights legislation of 1964 and 1965.
The first was its unprecedented concentration of power. It gave Washington tools it had never before had in peacetime. It created new crimes, outlawing discrimination in almost every walk of public and private life. It revoked—or repealed—the prevailing understanding of freedom of association as protected by the First Amendment. It established agencies to hunt down these new crimes—an expanded Civil Rights Commission, an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and various offices of civil rights in the different cabinet agencies. It gave government new prerogatives, such as laying out hiring practices for all companies with more than 15 employees, filing lawsuits, conducting investigations, and ordering redress. Above all, it exposed every corner of American social, economic, and political life to direction from bureaucrats and judges.
To put it bluntly, the effect of these civil rights laws was to take a lot of decisions that had been made in the democratic parts of American government and relocate them to the bureaucracy or the judiciary. Only with that kind of arsenal, Lyndon Johnson and the drafters thought, would it be possible to root out insidious racism.
The second noteworthy thing about the civil rights legislation of the 1960s is that it was kind of a fudge. It sat uneasily not only with the First Amendment, but with the Constitution as a whole. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, passed largely to give teeth to the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal rights for all citizens, did so by creating different levels of rights for citizens of southern states like Alabama and citizens of northern states like Michigan when it came to election laws.
The goal of the civil rights laws was to bring the sham democracies of the American South into conformity with the Constitution. But nobody’s democracy is perfect, and it turned out to be much harder than anticipated to distinguish between democracy in the South and democracy elsewhere in the country. If the spirit of the law was to humiliate Southern bigots, the letter of the law put the entire country—all its institutions—under the threat of lawsuits and prosecutions for discrimination.
Still, no one was too worried about that. It is clear in retrospect that Americans outside the South understood segregation as a regional problem. As far as we can tell from polls, 70-90 percent of Americans outside the South thought that blacks in their part of the country were treated just fine, the same as anyone else. In practice, non-Southerners did not expect the new laws to be turned back on themselves.
The Broadening of Civil Rights
The problem is that when the work of the civil rights legislation was done—when de jure segregation was stopped—these new powers were not suspended or scaled back or reassessed. On the contrary, they intensified. The ability to set racial quotas for public schools was not in the original Civil Rights Act, but offices of civil rights started doing it, and there was no one strong enough to resist. Busing of schoolchildren had not been in the original plan, either, but once schools started to fall short of targets established by the bureaucracy, judges ordered it.
Affirmative action was a vague notion in the Civil Rights Act. But by the time of the Supreme Court’s 1978 Bakke decision, it was an outright system of racial preference for non-whites. In that case, the plaintiff, Alan Bakke, who had been a U.S. Marine captain in Vietnam, saw his application for medical school rejected, even though his test scores were in the 96th, 94th, 97th, and 72nd percentiles. Minority applicants, meanwhile, were admitted with, on average, scores in the 34th, 30th, 37th, and 18th percentiles. And although the Court decided that Bakke himself deserved admission, it did not do away with the affirmative action programs that kept him out. In fact, it institutionalized them, mandating “diversity”—a new concept at the time—as the law of the land.
Meanwhile other groups, many of them not even envisioned in the original legislation, got the hang of using civil rights law. Immigrant advocates, for instance: Americans never voted for bilingual education, but when the Supreme Court upheld the idea in 1974, rule writers in the offices of civil rights simply established it, and it exists to this day. Women, too: the EEOC battled Sears, Roebuck ; Co. from 1973 to 1986 with every weapon at its disposal, trying to prove it guilty of sexism—ultimately failing to prove even a single instance of it.
Finally, civil rights came to dominate—and even overrule—legislation that had nothing to do with it. The most traumatic example of this was the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. This legislation was supposed to be the grand compromise on which our modern immigration policy would be built. On the one hand, about three million illegal immigrants who had mostly come north from Mexico would be given citizenship. On the other hand, draconian laws would ensure that the amnesty would not be an incentive to future migrants, and that illegal immigration would never get out of control again. So there were harsh “employer sanctions” for anyone who hired a non-citizen. But once the law passed, what happened? Illegal immigrants got their amnesty. But the penalties on illegal hiring turned out to be fake—because, to simplify just a bit, asking an employee who “looks Mexican” where he was born or about his citizenship status was held to be a violation of his civil rights. Civil rights law had made it impossible for Americans to get what they’d voted for through their representatives, leading to decades of political strife over immigration policy that continues to this day.
A more recent manifestation of the broadening of civil rights laws is the “Dear Colleague” letter sent by the Obama Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights in 2011, which sought to dictate sexual harassment policy to every college and university in the country. Another is the overturning by judges of a temporary ban on entry from certain countries linked to terrorism in the first months of the Trump administration in 2017.
These policies, qua policies, have their defenders and their detractors. The important thing for our purposes is how they were established and enforced. More and more areas of American life have been withdrawn from voters’ democratic control and delivered up to the bureaucratic and judicial emergency mechanisms of civil rights law. Civil rights law has become a second constitution, with powers that can be used to override the Constitution of 1787.
The New Constitution
In explaining the constitutional order that we see today, I’d like to focus on just two of its characteristics.
First, it has a moral element, almost a metaphysical element, that is usually more typical of theocracies than of secular republics. As we’ve discussed, civil rights law gave bureaucrats and judges emergency powers to override the normal constitutional order, bypassing democracy. But the key question is: Under what conditions is the government authorized to activate these emergency powers? It is a question that has been much studied by political thinkers in Europe. Usually when European governments of the past bypassed their constitutions by declaring emergencies, it was on the grounds of a military threat or a threat to public order. But in America, as our way of governing has evolved since 1964, emergencies are declared on a moral basis: people are suffering; their newly discovered rights are being denied. America can’t wait anymore for the ordinary democratic process to take its course.
A moral ground for invoking emergencies sounds more humane than a military one. It is not. That is because, in order to justify its special powers, the government must create a class of officially designated malefactors. With the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the justification of this strong medicine was that there was a collection of Southern politicians who were so wily and devious, and a collection of Southern sheriffs so ruthless and depraved, that one could not, and was not morally obliged to, fight fair with them.
That pattern has perpetuated itself, even as the focus of civil rights has moved to American institutions less obviously objectionable than segregation. Every intervention in the name of rights requires the identification of a malefactor. So very early on in the gay marriage debate, those who believed in traditional marriage were likened to segregationists or to those who had opposed interracial marriage.
Joe Biden recently said: “Let’s be clear: Transgender equality is the civil rights issue of our time. There is no room for compromise when it comes to basic human rights.” Now, most Americans, probably including Joe Biden, know very little about transgenderism. But this is an assertion that Americans are not going to be permitted to advance their knowledge by discussing the issue in public or to work out their differences at the ballot box. As civil rights laws have been extended by analogy into other areas of American life, the imputation of moral non-personhood has been aimed at a growing number of people who have committed no sin more grievous than believing the same things they did two years ago, and therefore standing in the way of the progressive juggernaut.
The second characteristic of the new civil rights constitution is what we can call intersectionality. This is a sociological development. As long as civil rights law was limited to protecting the rights of Southern blacks, it was a stable system. It had the logic of history behind it, which both justified and focused its application. But if other groups could be given the privilege of advancing their causes by bureaucratic fiat and judicial decree, there was the possibility of a gradual building up of vast new coalitions, maybe even electoral majorities. This was made possible because almost anyone who was not a white heterosexual male could benefit from civil rights law in some way.
Seventy years ago, India produced the first modern minority-rights based constitution with a long, enumerated list of so-called “scheduled tribes and castes.” Eventually, inter-group horse trading took up so much of the country’s attention that there emerged a grumbling group of “everyone else,” of “ordinary Indians.” These account for many of the people behind the present prime minister, Narendra Modi. Indians who like Modi say he’s the candidate of average citizens. Those who don’t like him, as most of the international media do not, call him a “Hindu nationalist.”
We have a version of the same thing happening in America. By the mid-1980s, the “intersectional” coalition of civil rights activists started using the term “people of color” to describe itself. Now, logically, if there really is such a thing as “people of color,” and if they are demanding a larger share of society’s rewards, they are ipso facto demanding that “non–people of color” get a smaller share. In the same way that the Indian constitution called forth the idea of a generic “Hindu,” the new civil rights constitution created a group of “non–people of color.” It made white people a political reality in the United States in a way they had never been.
Now we can apply this insight to parties. So overpowering is the hegemony of the civil rights constitution of 1964 over the Constitution of 1787, that the country naturally sorts itself into a party of those who have benefitted by it and a party of those who have been harmed by it.
A Party of Bigots and a Party of Totalitarians
Let’s say you’re a progressive. In fact, let’s say you are a progressive gay man in a gay marriage, with two adopted children. The civil rights version of the country is everything to you. Your whole way of life depends on it. How can you back a party or a politician who even wavers on it? Quite likely, your whole moral idea of yourself depends on it, too. You may have marched in gay pride parades carrying signs reading “Stop the Hate,” and you believe that people who opposed the campaign that made possible your way of life, your marriage, and your children, can only have done so for terrible reasons. You are on the side of the glorious marchers of Birmingham, and they are on the side of Bull Connor. To you, the other party is a party of bigots.
But say you’re a conservative person who goes to church, and your seven-year-old son is being taught about “gender fluidity” in first grade. There is no avenue for you to complain about this. You’ll be called a bigot at the very least. In fact, although you’re not a lawyer, you have a vague sense that you might get fired from your job, or fined, or that something else bad will happen. You also feel that this business has something to do with gay rights. “Sorry,” you ask, “when did I vote for this?” You begin to suspect that taking your voice away from you and taking your vote away from you is the main goal of these rights movements. To you, the other party is a party of totalitarians.
And that’s our current party system: the bigots versus the totalitarians.
If either of these constitutions were totally devoid of merit, we wouldn’t have a problem. We could be confident that the wiser of the two would win out in the end. But each of our two constitutions contains, for its adherents, a great deal worth defending to the bitter end. And unfortunately, each constitution must increasingly defend itself against the other.
When gay marriage was being advanced over the past 20 years, one of the common sayings of activists was: “The sky didn’t fall.” People would say: “Look, we’ve had gay marriage in Massachusetts for three weeks, and I’ve got news for you! The sky didn’t fall!” They were right in the short term. But I think they forgot how delicate a system a democratic constitutional republic is, how difficult it is to get the formula right, and how hard it is to see when a government begins—slowly, very slowly—to veer off course in a way that can take decades to become evident.
Then one day we discover that, although we still deny the sky is falling, we do so with a lot less confidence.
Christopher Caldwell is a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, a contributing editor at the Claremont Review of Books, and a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times. A graduate of Harvard College, he has been a senior editor at the Weekly Standard and a columnist for the Financial Times. He is the author of Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West and The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment