Looks like it is happening again.

Dan Fuchs said business was just starting to pick up at his kiosk in the Mall at Johnson City.

Fuchs’ business, the Graphic Edge, printed slogans and pictures on items such as coffee cups, bumper stickers and T-shirts. He said more than half of his business came from the sale of anti-Obama merchandise. Bumper stickers with slogans such as “SOS: Stop Obama’s Socialism,” “Nobama,” and “Chicago got the party, but the country got the hangover” were displayed around the small stand.

Now it appears Fuchs is out of business at the mall, but mall officials say this decision was not based upon political views.

Friday afternoon, Fuchs was handed a lease termination notice by mall officials and signed by Mall General Manager Tembra Aldridge. The letter states that the option to terminate the lease agreement is effective 11:59 p.m. today and that he must vacate the mall premises and remove his property before then.

Fuchs said he was given no reason for this termination and was shocked and upset. Thursday evening, Fuchs said mall officials met with him and told him to take down the anti-Obama items on display by closing time or face immediate eviction.

I’m curious – how much anti-Bush merchandise was banned during the previous eight years? How many retailers have been ordered out of malls for being too pro-Obama? And will we Americans continue to spend our money in malls that show such contempt for the views of so many Americans?

Feel free to contact the management of the Mall at Johnson City to express your disapproval – and the property’s owner, the Glimcher Realty Trust.

And remember -- this isn't the first time this has happened.

Posted by: Greg at 11:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 301 words, total size 2 kb.

Seems to me that they are out to prove Joe Wilson right when he said that Obama lied about border-jumping immigration criminals not being covered under ObamaCare.

Fearful that they're losing ground on immigration and health care, a group of House Democrats is pushing back and arguing that any health care bill should extend to all legal immigrants and allow illegal immigrants some access, The Washington Times reported on Monday.

The Democrats, trying to stiffen their party's spines on the contentious issue, say it's unfair to bar illegal immigrants from paying their own way in a government-sponsored exchange. Legal immigrants, they say, regardless of how long they've been in the United States, should be able to get government-subsidized health care if they meet the other eligibility requirements.

Of course, the next argument is that illegals too poor to afford the insurance should get it for free – expect it. And there will certainly be a bar to using data from ObamaCare for purposes of locating illegals and deporting them. In other words, this will just be welfare for lawbreakers.

Posted by: Greg at 11:16 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

Not only is Elizabeth Edwards making blog comments using the persona of a black woman, but there are some other fun details as well.

Along with claiming that Edwards and Hunter made a sex tape, the proposal alleges:

* Edwards had had affairs with other women on the campaign trail.

* When Edwards was forced to call off a birthday date with Hunter because he found out that Elizabeth's cancer had returned, an unsympathetic Hunter screamed at him.

* After learning of the affair, Elizabeth made John sleep in their barn though she would wake him up with accusatory rants.

* Hunter relied on a California psychic named Bob to tell her where to live and what to do.

* Edwards had little affection for John Kerry - once comparing him to Richie Rich - but changed his tune when the Democratic presidential nominee tapped him as his running mate.

* Ted Kennedy once told Young about a would-be assassin who managed to get into his Senate office because one of his bodyguards was having a gay liaison with one of his top aides.

Interesting, isnÂ’t it, that the media isnÂ’t giving this situation the same sort of coverage as Mark Sanford, Larry Craig, or other Republicans with fidelity problems. I guess that the D after EdwardsÂ’ name is sufficient to keep the press from being too interested.

Posted by: Greg at 11:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

The first three words of the US Constitution are "We the People". That is important, because it is indicative of the basic truth that all government power in the United States derives from We the People -- that We the People are sovereigns, not subjects.

And so the arrogance of the Democrats on this point is particularly galling.

Senate Finance Committee Democrats have rejected a GOP amendment that would have required a health overhaul bill to be available online for 72 hours before the committee votes.

Republicans argued that transparency is an Obama administration goal. They also noted that their constituents are demanding that they read bills before voting.

Democrats said it was a delay tactic that could have postponed a vote for weeks.

In other words, We the People don't have a right to know what those who are supposed to serve us, who derive their authority from our sovereignty, are trying to do with the limited power that we deign to grant them. Seems to me that they are under the mistaken notion that they, not We, are sovereign.

Seems to me that it is time for We the People to take action against those who would ignore the source of their authority.

Posted by: Greg at 11:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 219 words, total size 1 kb.

Given that that the implementation of any eventual healthcare scheme proposed by the Democrats is years away, Rep. Eric Cantor did the responsible thing when confronted with a question of how a woman who has cancer RIGHT NOW can get help for her condition.

CHURCHILL: I have a very close relative, a woman in her early forties, who did have a wonderful, high-paying job, owns her own home and is a real contributing member of society. She lost her job. Just a couple of weeks ago, she found out that she has tumors in her belly and that she needs an operation. Her doctors told her that they are growing and that she needs to get this operation quickly. She has no insurance. [...]

CANTOR: First of all I guess I would ask what the situation is in terms of income eligibility and the existing programs that are out there. Because if we look at the uninsured that are out there right now, there is probably 23, 24% of the uninsured that is already eligible for an existing government program [...] Beyond that, I know that there are programs, there are charitable organizations, there are hospitals here who do provide charity care if thereÂ’s an instance of indigency and the individual is not eligible for existing programs that there can be some cooperative effort. No one in this country, given who we are, should be sitting without an option to be addressed.

Not good enough for the libs over at Think Progress, who ignore the fact that he is trying to direct this dying woman to help RIGHT NOW, not at some hypothetical future date when legislation might go into effect four or five years ago. But I guess they would have preferred a promise to vote for single payer health insurance, even if the woman in question were to die in the interim – because, in the words of every Trekkie’s favorite Vulcan, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.”

Posted by: Greg at 09:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 356 words, total size 2 kb.

I was never a huge fan, and sharply criticized him for his betrayal of his party and his district in 2006.

But Tom DeLay was my congressman, after all -- and I always found him to be a pretty cordial fellow.

Here's wishing you all the best, Tom. Please at least knock out that damned Dallas Cowboy.

Posted by: Greg at 03:20 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

And that he clearly doesn't know what he is talking about when he tries to con us into his risky healthcare scheme.

In the most contentious exchange of President Barack Obama’s marathon of five Sunday shows, he said it is “not true” that a requirement for individuals to get health insurance under a key reform plan now being debated amounts to a tax increase.

But he could look it up — in the bill.

Page 29, sentence one of the bill introduced by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont) says: “The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax.”

And the rest of the bill is clear that the Finance Committee does, in fact, consider it a tax: “The excise tax would be assessed through the tax code and applied as an additional amount of Federal tax owed.”

The bill requires every American, with few exceptions, to carry health insurance. To enforce this individual mandate, the Senate Finance Committee created the excise tax as a penalty for people who don’t have insurance – and it can run as much as $3,800 a year per family.

The House bill also refers to the penalties for not carrying insurance as a tax. It calls for a “tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage” and amends the tax code to implement it.

Seems pretty clear to me that hte Obamateur doesn't know what he is talking about -- or doesn't have any regard for the truth when he speaks.

So what do you think?

Is the president a liar, or just in way over his head -- or both?

Posted by: Greg at 03:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 282 words, total size 2 kb.

I guess you have to be a dead abortionist to get the President to condemn acts of violence committed against you.

Flagstaff, AZ (LifeNews.com) -- Pro-life advocates are upset by an attack on a pro-life man in Arizona who was holding a pro-life sign that apparently upset two pro-abortion women. The attack came eight days after pro-life advocate James Pouillon was shot repeatedly and killed in Michigan by a man who didn't like him protesting abortion at a high school.

In the new case, 69-year-old Johnny Wallace was attacked by two women as he held two pro-life signs condemning the racist undertones of abortion and Planned Parenthood.

Wallace was alone in front of City Hall on the busiest street in town at the time of the attack. He was known to take up position at the spot most every day to make sure members of the community were reminded of the problems associated with abortion.

His two signs read "Abortion kills more black Americans in four days than the Klan killed in 150 years," and "Life begins at conception and ends at Planned Parenthood."

Wallace was approached from behind by two women, both 48, who began by yelling profanities at him. One then attempted to take way and destroy his sign. After Wallace was wrestled to the ground, the other woman joined the attack.

Paramedics were called and Wallace was treated for minor injuries. He suffered an elbow injury that has required additional treatment, according to officials with the pro-life group Operation Rescue.

Both women were cited and released on misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct and criminal damage.

This is the second major politically motivated attack against pro-life Americans for exercising their civil rights regarding this issue. As yet there has been no condemnation from teh White House as there was over the murder of abortionist George Tiller, despite the toll of one dead and one injured for doing nothing more than engaging in freedom of speech in a public place. When ill Barack Obama -- allegedly the president of ALL Americans -- speak out against these acts of political terrorism against pro-life Americans? When will the Justice Department open civil rihts investigations regarding these two events? Or do the lives and safety of Americans involved with this divisive issue only matter when they support the slaughter of the unborn?

Posted by: Greg at 12:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 422 words, total size 3 kb.

Remember when the Democrats and media assured us that the Tea Party protesters and folks turning out at town hall meetings were nothing but organized astroturf rather than genuine grassroots activism? Well, what should we call this?

The plan for a series of grass-roots demonstrations Tuesday to promote President Obama's health care agenda calls for tightly scripted events and an "escalation" of efforts against "enemies" of reform.

Organizers insist there is no comparison to rowdy summer town hall meetings and recent "tea party" protests that have challenged White House policies.

But Health Care for America Now (HCAN), which is backed by a coalition of labor unions and liberal groups including ACORN and MoveOn.org, organized the protests to target insurance companies and drafted the plan, which describes the demonstrations as part of its "insurance enemies project."

The document, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times, details specific talking points, tactics, props and strategies to stage the protests. It lists goals that include action that "mobilizes our base by animating existing anger about private insurers."

The HCAN field plan dictates that each protest will include a minimum of 30 participants, target only health care insurers CIGNA, WellPoint and United Health Care and showcase what it calls "victims," or people who have either lost insurance, can't afford it or were denied coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions.

Got that -- they've scripted out the talking points, are providing props and signs, and even determined the minimum number of participants who will be brought in to these staged events. But then they deny that their activities are anything other than a reflection of the feelings of the American people.

Sounds like astroturf to me -- much more so than any of the events of the summer by opponents of ObamaCare.

H/T Founding Bloggers, Marathon Pundit, Prairie Pundit, Let Freedom Ring

Posted by: Greg at 03:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 321 words, total size 3 kb.

What does the Obama Regime have to hide?

That is my question when I found this little tidbit in the midst of a profile of Obama's campaign lawyer, Robert Bauer.

Mr. Bauer would not consent to an interview for this article. Mr. Obama recently issued an informal edict advising his staff not to assist with profiles.

So much for the new era of openness in Washington, and the desire to let Americans see inside the workings of our system of government and politics. In light of the dishonesty uncovered by the press among Obama's cronies and appointees -- along with the extremist views of those like Van Jones -- the new policy is to be the least transparent administration in American history, with the Regime adopting a Nixonian tactic of stonewalling the press.

Posted by: Greg at 01:08 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Good article, thank you If you are interesting 2012 year, by the way, welcome to us http://2012earth.net

Posted by: Earth at Thu Oct 8 01:54:49 2009 (8n1lS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Or something like that.

DNC Promises 'Rain Of Hellfire'

No doubt to be followed by the "reign of hellfire" when Obama is exposed as the antiChrist or Satan replaces Biden as veep in 2012.

Or something like that.

Posted by: Greg at 12:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

Not the people of Massachusetts, who will have no voice in picking that senator.

No, it is Barack Obama who needs that vote and voice.

Gov. Deval Patrick said Friday that President Barack Obama had personally talked to him about changing the Senate succession law in Massachusetts, and White House aides were pushing for him to gain the power to temporarily replace the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy amid the administration's health care push.

A month after a White House spokesman labeled the issue a state matter, Patrick said he and Obama spoke about changing the law as they both attended Kennedy's funeral in Boston last month. He also said White House aides have been in contact frequently ever since and pushing for the change so they can regain their filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate.

"He and his whole team have been very clear about that," Patrick told reporters after holding a Cabinet meeting near his Berkshire Mountains vacation home

So when the corrupt Democrats of the Massachusetts legislature change the law to allow for an appointment and the corrupt Democrat governor of Massachusetts makes that appointment and the corrupt Democrat leadership of the Senate allows that appointee to be seated, let's call it like it really is. This appointee won't be the Senator from Massachusetts. He (or she) will be the Senator from Obama.

And look who is emerging as the leading contender to be the Senator from Obama. Massachusetts -- and America -- deserve better.

Posted by: Greg at 12:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

Out in California, we are seeing a couple of women battling for major political offices on the basis of their experience heading up large multi-national corporations. On its face, such private sector executive experience is a good thing – and the coming of moderately conservative female candidates to the GOP is a positive development.

But now Connecticut has its own female corporate CEO seeking the Senate nomination to challenge Senator Chris Dodd, whose own corruption is weighing him down like an anchor dropped into the Marianas Trench. But is this candidate one that we conservatives can embrace?

World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. Chief Executive Linda McMahon stepped down from her post, one day after joining the increasingly crowded Republican field looking to run against Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd.

WWE Chairman Vince McMahon will assume the additional duties of CEO, supported by "the seasoned executive management team already in place," the wresting entertainment and media company said.

The announcement came as WWE grapples with the weak economy and competition from sports such as kickboxing. Still, WWE's profit nearly tripled in the latest quarter amid cost cuts as revenue rose 7%.

Ms. McMahon, 60 years old, is the fourth Republican to declare her candidacy, following former Rep. Rob Simmons, state Sen. Sam Caligiuri and former U.S. Ambassador to Ireland Tom Foley. Mr. Dodd will be seeking a sixth term in next year's election.

Let’s be honest – Linda McMahon has great name and face identification from her involvement in the WWE (formerly the WWF). But that is as much a problem as it is a benefit. Look at where her image has come from – a violent pseudo-sport that is rife with illegal drug use (both steroids and narcotics). McMahon herself has joined the parade of characters over the years in some less than tasteful storylines. Add this to her history of donating to Democrats (including Rahm Emanuel), her pro-choice position on abortion, and her generally moderate politics and I wonder if the base can accept her. Indeed, all I can think of is that she is a female Arnold Schwarzenegger.

H/T Doug Powers

Posted by: Greg at 12:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 3 kb.

Remember how loony lefties complained about the "unitary executive theory" allegedly espoused by the Bush Administration? Well, ignorant LibTalker Ed Schultz thinks that such a system is just great now that Barry Hussein is in the White House.

Want proof? It's right here in his own words, where he makes it clear that he believes that the legislative branch is not co-equal to the executive branch, but is instead subordinate to it -- and that the president is the supervisor of members of the House and Senate, just like the manager is the supervisor of the pimply-faced teenager working drive-through at McDonalds.

Ask yourself this question as you try to put this in perspective. Do you think it was professional? And ask yourself, if you acted like that in the workplace, how would that be received by your supervisor and do you think you'd be able to hang onto your job?

Except, of course, for the minor detail that Congressman Joe Wilson does not work for Barry Hussein or anyone else in the Obama Regime. Congressman Joe Wilson works for the people of his congressional district -- who seem to be pretty supportive of his having spoken truth to power when Obama lied to the American people. I'll be honest -- I wish a few more had done the same.

So remember, my fellow Americans (and left-wingers pretending to be loyal Americans) -- when liberals talk about the Constitution, it doesn't mean that they are talking about what the document really says, but rather about what they want it to say (even when that contradicts what it actually says).

Posted by: Greg at 03:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.

American citizens arrested on drug charges in national parks are invariably prosecuted in Massachusetts. So why was one prominent non-American given a pass on such charges?

Political commentator, author and writer for The Atlantic magazine Andrew M. Sullivan won’t have to face charges stemming from a recent pot bust at the Cape Cod National Seashore — but a federal judge isn't happy about it.

U. S. Magistrate Judge Robert B. Collings says in his decision that the case is an example of how sometimes "small cases raise issues of fundamental importance in our system of justice."

While marijuana possession may have been decriminalized, Sullivan, who owns a home in Provincetown, made the mistake of being caught by a park ranger with a controlled substance on National Park Service lands, a federal misdemeanor.

The ranger issued Sullivan a citation, which required him either to appear in U.S. District Court or, in essence, pay a $125 fine.

But the U.S. AttorneyÂ’s Office sought to dismiss the case. Both the federal prosecutor and SullivanÂ’s attorney said it would have resulted in an "adverse effect" on an unspecified "immigration status" that Sullivan, a British citizen, is applying for.

The US Attorney for the area is an Obama appointee. Sullivan was an outspoken Obama supporters during the campaign whose immigration status would potentially be in danger if the charges resulted in either a guilty plea or a conviction.

So why was the Obama-supporting, HIV-positive, bare-backing, drug-using, gay undesirable alien given treatment that no other defendant received in the courtroom that day -- treatment that led the judge to go so far as to raise questions of equal protection of the law?

I don't know.

Maybe Sullivan was in a position to confirm this story -- or one like it.

I don't know, but when you consider how the mainstream media protected John Edwards for so long from tabloid reports about infidelity and an illegitimate child -- reports that proved to be true -- it is a question that must be asked. And hopefully answered.

After all, we've already seen Obamunist subversion of justice in favor of Obama supporters by the Obama Regime's so-called "Department of Justice". Why would something like this surprise anyone?

A day late and a dollar short, at least one MSM outlet is taking notice. When will the rest?

Also, Sullivan cops out on the issue. What legal issues? After all, the dismissal means you are in the clear.

MORE AT The Other McCain, Riehl World View, VodkaPundit, Reason's Hit & Run, POWIP, Ace, Jawa Report, Gawker, Instapundit, Ron Radosh, Moonbattery, Blogs for Victory, Gay Patriot

Posted by: Greg at 01:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 442 words, total size 5 kb.

You want me to support government run health care for everyone? Fine, I'll do it -- provided it is in the form of the proposal offered by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA).

(Proposal is at the 4:00 mark)

Sounds rather straightforward to me -- just give every American the exact same insurance and options provided to every member of Congress. No need for a mega-bill like is currently under consideration in the House and Senate -- just a single page of legislation that says that every American gets what their elected representatives get.

And said plan is surely better than what you and your minions are currently proposing -- after all HR 3200 specifically exempts members of Congress and their staffs from having to have the same insurance as other Americans. If the plan that will come into being under HR 3200 isn't good enough for the employees of the people, it certainly is not good enough for the people themselves.

H/T Gateway Pundit

Posted by: Greg at 10:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 2 kb.

It is called a contract. It defines the rights and obligations of parties. Unfortunately, this particular contract was not worth the paper it was written on.

The Texas Tomorrow Fund, faced with possible bankruptcy, is drastically cutting its payout on canceled contracts, angering many parents who signed up for the fund between 1996 and 2003.

The now-closed fund, later renamed the Texas Guaranteed Tuition Plan, allowed parents to prepay for tuition at locked-in rates and promised that if a child died or received a full scholarship, parents could cancel the contract and receive a payout based on current tuition and fees at public universities.

Tuition is three times what it was 10 years ago, so the payout would mean a windfall for many families.

But last week, a letter went out saying that in case of canceled contracts, the state would reimburse only the amount parents paid into the fund, minus administrative fees of around $36 per year.

This isn’t a little change – it means that those who were promised a return for their money will instead receive back less than they paid in. It means that the families of students who did well in school and qualified for scholarships get screwed. And it is totally unacceptable.

Posted by: Greg at 10:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 1 kb.

Over at DelawareLiberal, my favorite liberal blog, there is an interesting post on folks not wanting their tax dollars to go for health care. The author, who goes by DelawareDem, somewhat correctly notes that not wanting one’s tax dollars to pay for something means you disagree with what the taxes are paying for. He then launches into a rant which I find revealing – and which shows his fundamental misunderstanding of what such opposition means.

Alright. Touche. Two can play this game.

I donÂ’t want my taxes paying for social security checks going to guys like him. Why should I my money support his welfare when he cares not for mine?

I donÂ’t want my taxes paying for his medicare.

I donÂ’t want my taxes paying for the upkeep and maintenance of the roads leading to his house. Fuck him. He can fix the potholes himself.

I donÂ’t want my taxes educating his children and grandchildren. If he is so smart, he can pay for private education or teach them himself.

I donÂ’t want my taxes to pay for the firetruck he may need when his house is burning down. Fuck him. HeÂ’s got a water hose, let him do it himself.

For that matter, he better never call the cops or 911. My taxes pay for that and I donÂ’t want to save his miserable ass from whatever trouble he is in. And he better never use the court system, or the Post Office. My taxes pay for those things too. And only people who I agree with can use the services provided for by my hard earned dollars.
That is what this is about.

We don’t exclude political dissenters from government programs. Indeed, that would be highly inappropriate. Could you imagine the outrage if, for example, the Bush Administration had decreed that opponents of the Iraq War were ineligible for Social Security, Medicare and unemployment benefits? If regulations were put in place that declare that roads near their houses would be denied routine maintenance, their homes denied police and fire protection, and their children denied an education? If it had been made illegal for them to use the postal service, the internet, or the broadcast media? And moreover, that those opponents of the administration policy would be denied access to the courts to challenge these facially unconstitutional actions by the totalitarian regime that put them in place? There would have been an uprising by the Left – supported by the Right – to put an end to both the restrictions and the administration that authored it.

In the case of the various permutations of ObamaCare, there are several principled bases for opposing the proposal.

First, there is the issue of cost – based upon our experience with the nearly bankrupt Medicare system, can we as a nation sustain a program of universal health insurance run by the government? And if we cannot sustain such costs, isn’t it implicit that cuts in funding will mean cuts in the care provided – which will bring with it the sort of problems we see today in Canada and the UK?

Second, there is the issue of form – is there a better way of ensuring better access to medical services than what has been proposed? Is more government – a lot more government, in fact – always the right answer?

Third, there is the issue of limited government – is it truly within the scope of a government supposedly limited by the Constitution to essentially take over one sixth of the economy? What of the issues of personal freedom and privacy that are intimately bound up with the adoption of such a system?

Fourth, there is the issue of permanence – once implemented, such programs become difficult to reform or repeal. In the case of Social Security, for example, it has become the third rail of American politics – untouchable because it would be impossible to close the program down without somehow funding it until current participants die because stripping those recipients of retirement benefits they have paid for their whole working lives would be unjust.

Fifth, there are those who simply disagree with the Obamunist premise that government funded health care is a right that the government is morally obligated to provide its people -- based upon competing philosophical notions of what constitutes a right.

And I could go on providing a host of logical, rational reasons for arguing that the sort of proposals that are being made – especially those with a “public option” that many on the Left are demanding – are simply wrong from a variety of perspectives. But notice that none of them are based upon the sort of selfish, “screw the other guy” mentality that DD ascribes to the bulk of opponents of ObamaCare. And indeed, most opponents of ObamaCare don’t hold to such selfish motivations. He is battling a strawman of his own creation.

In short, opponents of ObamaCare are not particularly selfish – and certainly no more selfish than those who are demanding benefits funded by the earnings of the most wealthy and productive Americans. The opponents hold instead to a vision of America in which government is more limited in scope – one more in keeping with the philosophy of government that dominated this country for the first 15 decades following its independence and which was abandoned, most would argue unwisely, by those who propagated the New Deal and the Great Society welfare state schemes.

Posted by: Greg at 09:33 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1054 words, total size 7 kb.