About Me

Name: halthouse1
Email: exetertraining@aol.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
[Click to edit me]

The Domestic Face Of "Overseas Contingency Operations"

Posted by halthouse1 on Monday, September 21, 2009 5:43:36 AM
From The Political and Financial Markets Commentator

 

Take A Good Look At This Man 

Remember back in March when the name change order came down from the top? No more Global War On Terror. It was now to be known as Overseas Contingency Operations. I suppose that GWOT had negative connotations for the Obama administration. 

The President had the idea of putting lipstick on the pig that had been named right after 9/11 (the worst domestic attack on our Country), changing it to something a little more palatable for the American people. But, you know what, the pig is still a pig and the war on terror is still very much global! It is critically important for the everyday citizens to keep their guards up and stay ever so vigilant for anything going on that may not seem just right. Let me tell you how I know that. 

A Domestic Face Of Terror 

This is Najibullah Zazi, and allegedly he wants to kill Americans right here at home. Not overseas. Not in someone else's back yard. No right here in one of the hubs of President Obama's overseas contingency operations. He received weapons and explosives training at an Al Qaida training camp near Pakistan in 2008. He, along with his father were arrested, with more being sought. 

On his computer nine pages of notes were found on how to build an explosive device and a detonator to trigger it. He was found with video of Grand Central Station (large commuter rail hub in New York City) and had researched the interiors of football stadiums and other large venues. Apparently he was the man who would make the call on when an attack would take place. 

So what does it all mean to us? 

Number one it means law enforcement did a great job monitoring, tracking and arresting Zazi before another tragedy took place. 

Number two it means that Americans, who possess extremely short memories, need to wake up and understand that the War On Terror is not over, and may never be over. That those who wish to kill us have not changed their minds. 

Number three is that this enemy understands number two only too well, and has the patience to wait 5 or 10 years to take the next shot (the first World Trade Center attack took place in 1993, eight years before 9/11). 

Number four is that parts of our government need to understand these facts, and along with the ACLU stop trying to tie the hands of the very people who are tasked with protecting us. 

Number five is that organizations such as the ACLU and the far left play right into the hands of our enemies. Those that want to kill us must sit back and laugh at the arguments that go on regarding interrogation and the rights of terrorist suspects held at Gitmo. These discussions don't go on in their governments or leaderships. It is this weakness that we convey that only serves to embolden them. 

Number six is that these "negotiations" with Iran over its nuclear intentions are a charade, and that they will never stop trying to amass weapons of mass destruction to kill us, either themselves or through a proxy. 

Number seven is a summary of the first 6. We as Americans need to wake up and see that our very existence is constantly threatened. 

How many people around the country are not even aware of the arrest and the intent of those arrested? 

Let your representatives in Washington know (particularly those represented by the Pelosi left) that the philosophy they are trying to invoke on the American people is hazardous to our health and well being, and they need to step up and start facing that fact. 

This healthcare debate which is consuming all of the thought and time of Congress, is merely a smoke screen if the terrorists have their way. Step up and protect the country in the way that this great land needs to be.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Missile Defense: A Roll Of The Dice

Posted by halthouse1 on Saturday, September 19, 2009 7:30:56 AM
From The Political and Financial Markets Commentator (http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com). Visit to sign-up for free feed or email delivery of new articles.   

 

Huge Concession To Russia. Will Russia Do The Same For Us?

 

 

President Obama better hope so! When we meet with Russia at the G 20 and the U.N. General Assembly, we had better get backing from Russia on Iranian action, or the weakening of our defenses will have been in vain, and America under this administration will once again be viewed as weak and ineffectual at a great cost to the American people and others around the world.

 

Even if they make overtures of agreement on action against Iran, will they follow through? Will they still operate through the back door? We know we have given up our plan, but how do we really know if the Russians ever give up theirs?

 

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev: "We appreciate the responsible approach of the U.S. president." Of course he does!

 

"I discussed this issue with the U.S. president during our meetings in London and Moscow. At that time, in our joint statement, we agreed to, and set in stone that Russia and the United States will seek to work together to assess the risks of missile proliferation in the world." All well and good, but what is Russia bringing to the table?

 

Excerpt from September 9th story here: Eastern European Missile Defense: Da Comrades, Izvi`Neete

 

In it I made the following comments: "It now appears that the United States stands ready to abandon the plans for missile defense installations in Poland and Czechoslovakia. This at the urging of our "good" friends in Moscow. What do we stand to gain by weakening our ability to defend against longer range Iranian missiles.

 

We HOPE that through this appeasement, Moscow will end its shipments of materials to Iran that are actually assisting its program of developing nuclear weapons. We also hope that Moscow will then cease giving aid in the development of Iran's missile defenses designed to stop a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear weapons manufacturing facilities or nuclear weapons themselves. Quite a leap of faith!"

 

Yet cave to Russian pressure is exactly what we did! We know why the Russian President is smiling above, but why President Obama? Does he know something we don't know? I certainly hope so.

 

The Need For Strength Of One's Convictions

 

Secretary Of Defense Robert Gates said this on scrapping the old plan for the new: (ABC News) “...The original program that I recommended would have had no capability against short and medium range missiles until probably 2018. What the new system provides is some capability beginning in 2011 that will grow steadily each year in terms of its sophistication and its coverage of Europe,” he added..."

 

Now Gates was there at the inception of the planned missile defense installations in Poland and Czechoslovakia during the Bush administration, citing its critical importance at the time. Now he is reversing that position. If he was honest then, he should resign in protest of this decision. If he is being honest now, then we need him to resign as well. What is the good to the security of our country if the Secretary of Defense is merely a pawn of the President with no convictions he is willing to stand behind?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Healthcare Public Option And Other Short Stories

Posted by halthouse1 on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 5:57:50 AM
From The Political and Financial Markets Commentator 

A Rose By Any Other Name Or Speak No Evil, See No Evil, Hear No Evil

Things have been a little quiet on the healthcare debate front over the past day or two, but the 800 pound gorilla is still in the room and is still very much alive and well. During this short lull I wanted to take a look at the critical public option piece for the program, and the fact that it is apparently losing its luster with many on the near left as a it remains a huge impediment to any legislation having a chance of being passed. And not getting something passed will doom the democrats in mid-term elections. 

We have had the discussion many times regarding the fact that government cannot efficiently or successfully run simple programs (cash for clunkers) as well as the more complex (FDIC,Social Security, Medicaid, USPS, Amtrak). The potential for Uncle Sam to take such a huge, incredibly complex and incredibly important piece of society as healthcare and run it in any way that is even close to the private sector is zero. And we, the people will be the ones holding the bag whether it is through a loss of top doctors, long waiting periods for what we now consider to be routine care and the potential for rationed care where the government will decide basically who should live (by getting treatment) and who should die (by not getting treatment). 

Does that mean a government run option is off of the table? Not exactly. Even if the public option per se is not included in the verbiage of any new proposal from the democrats, stay vigilant and watch for the public option trigger. This seemingly benign label in reality depicts a backdoor way into the original intention of government control. 

Truth, Lies and Videotape 

The Democrat's, since the Joe Wilson outburst during the Obama infomercial last week, have tried to turn it around and attempt to show that it is actually the Republicans that are less than total truth tellers.

In Townhall today John Hawkins wrote a great piece on 10 "You Lie" moments in the debate on healthcare. They are very interesting, and extremely telling. Here they are: 

1) "The President is working with Republicans: Obama has refused to meet with Republican leaders on health care since April. 

2) Republicans haven't suggested a plan for health care: Republicans have actually submitted 35 plans. 

3) The public option won't put the insurance industry out of business and lead to a government takeover of health care: Of course, it will. That's the whole purpose of putting it in the bill. Don't take my word for it, listen to Barney Frank explain it in his own words. 

4) Medicare won't be cut to fund this health care bill: Actually, there are $500 billion in cuts to Medicare planned to help pay for this bill. 

5) The health care plan won't add "one dime to our deficits either now or in the future." There is simply no bill that fits that description winding its way through Congress. According to the neutral Congressional Budget Office, the House bill adds $220 billion to the deficit over 10 years -- and even those numbers rely on very unlikely streams of revenue coming into the program. Moreover, the CBO only estimates numbers 10 years out. Over the long haul, all evidence points to costs skyrocketing into the stratosphere just as Social Security and Medicare have over time. 

6) Preventative care will be required in these bills and it'll save money: Studies show that preventative care increases, not decreases costs. That's not only because of the cost of the tests, but because it leads to large numbers of people being treated for potential problems that would never end up coming to fruition. 

7) Health care reform will help create more jobs: That's simply not true. According to the Natural Federation of Independent Businesses, this health care bill would wipe out 1.6 million jobs. 

8) Abortion won't be covered under the bill: Unless the bill specifically says abortion isn't covered, it's covered by default. Abortion is not mentioned in the House bill and thus, is covered. 

9) This bill won't lead to rationing of health care and people being denied life saving operations: Of course, it will. Barack Obama himself has even alluded to it with his famous, "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller" quip. In nations like Canada and Britain, long waits for surgeries and people being denied proven life saving operations for financial reasons is commonplace. How can anyone believe that we're going to copy their system and not have the same result? 

10) Obama's "Plan" doesn't have these problems you're talking about: Obama hasn't submitted any sort of plan to Congress. In other words, there is no special Obama plan. His only "plan" is to sign anything that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can push through Congress." 

  
The American public has to remember that it is not the people who talk the loudest or most often that are always correct in what they say. Many times it is the exact opposite. The democrats have the control, for now, of the bully pulpit in the form of the airwaves. But access does not always mean the truth.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

President Obama: How Do You Get A Schoolteacher This Mad?

Posted by halthouse1 on Friday, May 08, 2009 6:34:33 AM
The Political and Financial Markets Commentator at http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com
 

Friday, May 8, 2009

President Obama: How Do You Get A Schoolteacher This Mad?

Outrage Over The First 100 Days Of The Obama Administration

The Obama apologists love to invoke the first 100 days argument. That is, how can you expect miracles in 100 days when the president "inherited" the huge problems left by the Bush administration. Now I have my problems with the Obama administration, some of which I detail below, but nothing like those expressed in the letter following the picture of the one room schoolhouse.

Number one, as my expectations from a president go, I don't give a timeline of when I expect accomplishments to be seen. I just want to see steady progress being made.

Number two I also don't like to hear constant excuses as to why things are as they are and how the problems are so difficult. When a man or a woman chooses to run for office, they know what they are signing on for. Just do it.

Finally, as an observer of the President of the United States of America, the most powerful nation on earth, I don't like to see them going around the world apologizing for what it is we do, bowing to foreign leaders (although not all foreign leaders if you know what I mean) and cozying up to leaders such as Hugo Chavez.

This is all separate from his foreign policy charade of appeasement and serious "negotiations" with rogue countries that does nothing except buy these rogue nations time to accomplish whatever it is that rogue nations want to accomplish.

The Anger Of A Fourth Grade School Teacher

What does it take to stir the ire of a schoolteacher? How do you manufacture outrage that erupts into an open letter to President Obama. I guess I will step aside and let you read it for yourself:

Winton School House

Mr. Obama:

I have had it with you and your administration, sir. Your conduct on your recent trip overseas has convinced me that you are not an adequate representative of the United States of America collectively or of me personally.

You are so obsessed with appeasing the Europeans and the Muslim world that you have abdicated the responsibilities of the President of the United States of America . You are responsible to the citizens of the United States. You are not responsible to the peoples of any other country on earth.

I personally resent that you go around the world apologizing for the United States telling Europeans that we are arrogant and do not care about their status in the world. Sir, what do you think the First World War and the Second World War were all about if not the consideration of the peoples of Europe? Are you brain dead?

What do you think the Marshall Plan was all about? Do you not understand or know the history of the 20th century?

Where do you get off telling a Muslim country that the United States does not consider itself a Christian country? Have you not read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States? This country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and the principles governing this country, at least until you came along, come directly from this heritage. Do you not understand this?

Your bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia is an affront to all Americans. Our President does not bow down to anyone, let alone the king of Saudi Arabia. You don't show Great Britain, our best and one of our oldest allies, the respect they deserve yet you bow down to the king of Saudi Arabia. How dare you, sir! How dare you!

You can't find the time to visit the graves of our greatest generation because you don't want to offend the Germans but make time to visit a mosque in Turkey. You offended our dead and every veteran when you give the Germans more respect than the people who saved the German people from themselves. What's the matter with you?

I am convinced that you and the members of your administration have the historical and intellectual depth of a mud puddle and should be ashamed of yourselves, all of you. You are so self-righteously offended by the big bankers and the American automobile manufacturers yet do nothing about the real thieves in this situation, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Frank, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelic, the Fannie Mae bonuses, and the Freddie Mac bonuses. What do you intend to do about them? Anything? I seriously doubt it.

What about the U.S. House members passing out $9.1 million in bonuses to their staff members - on top of the $2.5 million in automatic pay raises that lawmakers gave themselves? I understand the average House aide got a 17% bonus. I took a 5% cut in my pay to save jobs with my employer. You haven't said anything about that. Who authorized that? I surely didn't!

Executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be receiving $210 million in bonuses over an eighteen-month period, that's $45 million more than the AIG bonuses. In fact, Fannie and Freddie executives have already been awarded $51 million - not a bad take. Who authorized that and why haven't you expressed your outrage at this group who are largely responsible for the economic mess we have right now.

I resent that you take me and my fellow citizens as brain-dead and not caring about what you idiots do. We are watching what you are doing and we are getting increasingly fed up with all of you.

I also want you to know that I personally find just about everything you do and say to be offensive to every one of my sensibilities.

I promise you that I will work tirelessly to see that you do not get a chance to spend two terms destroying my beautiful country.

Sincerely,

Ms Kathleen Lyday

Fourth Grade Teacher

Grandview Elementary School

11470 Hwy. C

Hillsboro, MO63050 Sphere: Related Content
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pakistan: Country and World in Crisis

Posted by halthouse1 on Monday, May 04, 2009 10:38:10 AM

Monday, May 4, 2009

Pakistan: Country and World in Crisis

Pakistan: Country and World in Crisis

When the crisis and danger is finally recognized by The New York Times, it becomes even more apparent that the situation is in fact dire. The articles below had been written by me back to March, when the level of the problem in Pakistan became obvious, to all except the Obama administration which continues to tell us that the situation is being monitored and the Pakistani government is on top of things. Hillary Clinton remains the invisible Secretary of State.

"The officials emphasized that there was no reason to believe that the arsenal, most of which is south of the capital, Islamabad, faced an imminent threat."(see below)

Funny, as a concerned outside observer I feel there is an iminent threat.

The problem is that we do not really know who is in charge of the government, or more to the point who do those in charge of the government (and by extension the nukes) hold allegiance to. All this as Pakistan remains our "reluctant ally"


Guest Blog: Pakistan: Time for Contingency Plannin...
Pakistan, the Taliban and Islamabad: Is Anyone Out...
Does President Obama Know About the Goings On In P...
Yesterday Pakistan, Today North Korea
Is Anyone Keeping An Eye On Pakistan?

Pakistan Strife Raises U.S. Doubts on Nuclear Arms (New York Times)

By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: May 3, 2009
WASHINGTON — As the insurgency of the Taliban and Al Qaeda spreads in Pakistan, senior American officials say they are increasingly concerned about new vulnerabilities for Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, including the potential for militants to snatch a weapon in transport or to insert sympathizers into laboratories or fuel-production facilities.

The officials emphasized that there was no reason to believe that the arsenal, most of which is south of the capital, Islamabad, faced an imminent threat. President Obama said last week that he remained confident that keeping the country’s nuclear infrastructure secure was the top priority of Pakistan’s armed forces.

But the United States does not know where all of Pakistan’s nuclear sites are located, and its concerns have intensified in the last two weeks since the Taliban entered Buner, a district 60 miles from the capital. The spread of the insurgency has left American officials less willing to accept blanket assurances from Pakistan that the weapons are safe.

Pakistani officials have continued to deflect American requests for more details about the location and security of the country’s nuclear sites, the officials said.... Sphere: Related Content
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pakistan: Country and World in Crisis

Posted by halthouse1 on Monday, May 04, 2009 10:35:15 AM

The Political and Financial Markets Commentator

Monday, May 4, 2009

Pakistan: Country and World in Crisis

Pakistan: Country and World in Crisis

When the crisis and danger is finally recognized by The New York Times, it becomes even more apparent that the situation is in fact dire. The articles below had been written by me back to March, when the level of the problem in Pakistan became obvious, to all except the Obama administration which continues to tell us that the situation is being monitored and the Pakistani government is on top of things. Hillary Clinton remains the invisible Secretary of State.

"The officials emphasized that there was no reason to believe that the arsenal, most of which is south of the capital, Islamabad, faced an imminent threat."(see below)

Funny, as a concerned outside observer I feel there is an iminent threat.

The problem is that we do not really know who is in charge of the government, or more to the point who do those in charge of the government (and by extension the nukes) hold allegiance to. All this as Pakistan remains our "reluctant ally"


Guest Blog: Pakistan: Time for Contingency Plannin...
Pakistan, the Taliban and Islamabad: Is Anyone Out...
Does President Obama Know About the Goings On In P...
Yesterday Pakistan, Today North Korea
Is Anyone Keeping An Eye On Pakistan?

Pakistan Strife Raises U.S. Doubts on Nuclear Arms (New York Times)

By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: May 3, 2009
WASHINGTON — As the insurgency of the Taliban and Al Qaeda spreads in Pakistan, senior American officials say they are increasingly concerned about new vulnerabilities for Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, including the potential for militants to snatch a weapon in transport or to insert sympathizers into laboratories or fuel-production facilities.

The officials emphasized that there was no reason to believe that the arsenal, most of which is south of the capital, Islamabad, faced an imminent threat. President Obama said last week that he remained confident that keeping the country’s nuclear infrastructure secure was the top priority of Pakistan’s armed forces.

But the United States does not know where all of Pakistan’s nuclear sites are located, and its concerns have intensified in the last two weeks since the Taliban entered Buner, a district 60 miles from the capital. The spread of the insurgency has left American officials less willing to accept blanket assurances from Pakistan that the weapons are safe.

Pakistani officials have continued to deflect American requests for more details about the location and security of the country’s nuclear sites, the officials said.... Sphere: Related Content
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Somali Pirate Hijacking Resolution Obama Style

Posted by halthouse1 on Saturday, April 11, 2009 11:00:00 AM
From The Political and Financial Markets Commentator at http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com.  If you like what you read, visit and sign-up for free daily email or feed delivery of that days article.
 
Mike Haltman
 

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Somali Pirate Hijacking Resolution Obama Style

There Is Nothing To Fear But Fear Itself: Franklin D. Roosevelt

Take a good hard look at the picture below. It is the USS Bainbridge with a Somali dingy in the foreground. The P-3 Orion aircraft that are also in the area are not shown. This is a lot of firepower for the size and scope of the mission. It is a great show of force by the Obama administration, that as we see is not instilling much in the way of fear within the Somali pirates that have U.S. citizen Captain Richard Phillips as a hostage. They have made the demand of $2 MM for his return.

THE SOMALI PIRATES ARE OFF THEIR ROCKERS.

My question to the Obama administration is what Plan B is. These pirates have nothing, and "when you ain't got nothing you ain't got nothing to lose" (Bob Dylan 1965). They live in a failed state and are being directed to do what they do by business interests on shore. These men I am sure are considered expendable by their employers and are therefore in a desperate situation.

The pirates want what they want which is money and they want it much like they have gotten it in every hijacking they have done in the past. They made the mistake this time of targeting a U.S. flagged vessel for the fact that it has brought world attention to the problem that before has been a story buried on page 5.

We can bring an aircraft carrier to the region, but unfortunately for this extremely brave Captain who behaved as a captain will, the only real deterrent going forward is to attack the boat, hopefully save the Captains life, but in the process indicate that going forward there will be no negotiating with terrorists. A pirate with all of romantic thoughts back to the age of Captain Hook, is a terrorist plain and simple. I realize this sounds callaus, and if it was me or a family member or friend of mine I may hesitate to say it.

The Obama administration is now being put in the position of its second foreign affairs test having failed the first one over the North Korea missile launch. The longer this standoff drones on, the weaker we will look. The more we try and negotiate and fail, the weaker we will look. There is no time for U.N. threats or to get a coalition of our allies together, but it is now the time for swift, definitive action out of this administration that says to the world, do not f__k with the United States.

We have not heard much from the President on this issue, and there are hopefully high level talks that are being conducted, but these are the types of situations where the American public needs to hear what the President has to say. He has not been shy in his first days in office as I seem to see him every time I turn on my T.V. Where is he now?

My hopes and prayers go out to this brave Captain's family and friends and I hope to God that he comes out of this okay, but we need to exert our force and resolve this situation. Sphere: Related Content
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Somali Pirates Go American Because They Think They Can!

Posted by halthouse1 on Thursday, April 09, 2009 6:00:00 AM
From The Political and Financial Markets Commentator at http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com
 

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Somali Pirates Go American Because They Think They Can!

An American Flagged Cargo Ship Is Attacked By Somali Pirates

I am going to try and not turn this discussion into a commentary on the world's perception of the strength and resolve of the United States under the Obama administration. Okay, I tried and then I tried again, but I just couldn't do it. The fact of the matter is that other country's or even pirates would typically think long and hard before attacking an American flagged vessel. And then not do it. Why? The real and frightening potential for swift and harsh action.

Armed Somali pilots who are seizing ships in the Gulf of Aden. Dozens of vessels have been attacked over the last several months prompting US/NATO involvement in the region.

The fact is that every action typically has some reaction. The Somali pirates must have thought about it, discussed it among themselves and come to the determination that there was really not that much to fear. They, like others, seem to have figured out that President Obama is a great speaker (most of the time particularly in front of a teleprompter), but that his bark seems to worse than his bite.

If we look at recent events such as the blatant disregard of the warnings to North Korea not to test fire a missile, at the same time President Obama was overseas on a meet and greet tour specifically discussing nuclear disarmament, a fear of any retribution obviously did not exist.

Not to pick on any of our allies, but let's use France as an example of a country that would be considered a likely choice to give in to terrorists quickly and easily. The United States would now appear to be viewed in the same way.

I would like to take this opportunity to say to President Obama that he needs to observe what is going on around him and take it all in. Nobody is saying that establishing a stronger, more friendly relationship with our allies is not a good thing. Having more open communications with them is great as well.

But at the end of the day, when push comes to shove and military force has to be used, who will be the leader if not the only participant. That would be the United States.

My suggestion therefore is not to be afraid to be tough and firm because you don't want to be called another George Bush or of possibly angering our allies. You need at the very least to create the perception and belief that you are a man of your word and are willing to back up what you say with action. Not a provocateur, but strong.

You are not in office to make friends. You are in office to protect the American people and advance our interests and if in the process you improve our relations around the world then that would be a bonus.

Remember that there is a fine line between being a good ally and becoming weak and vulnerable. Observe the actions of those that would like to do us harm, and as much as the Democrats ridicule the last 8 years, consider the fact that we have been terror free. Do not give in to the temptation to use the United Nations as our voice, guide and decision maker.
Sphere: Related Content
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »