George Lucas - Bush Bashing?

A couple of weeks ago, I read the novelization for Revenge of the Sith and I observed some not-so-subtle digs at the President, the Republicans and the current situation in Iraq.

Today at TechCentralStation, Craig Winneker has a column called "No Star Wars For Oil" that makes similar observations from the film itself. Winneker says that - bottom line - the movie is awesome but it doesn't take a major leap of faith to recognize the whiff of Lucas' Left-wing politics that emanate from the script.

The dialogue in ROTS is rife with distinctly unsubtle references to the current political situation. "This war represents a failure to listen," Padme laments at one point, before declaring after a vote to give executive power to Chancellor Palpatine: "So this is how liberty dies -- to thunderous applause." The wicked Chancellor, played brilliantly by Ian McDiarmid, talks on and on about "security", giving it an evilly sibilant S, and about "peace". As he lures Anakin over to the dark side, telling him what to say in Jedi Council meetings, you wonder if he's supposed to be Karl Rove. He does, after all, appear to be the smartest man in the movie.

The ultimate reference comes in the climactic duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan Kenobi on the planet of Mustafar, which seems to have long ago failed in its struggle against global warming. "If you're not with me, you're my enemy," Anakin shouts to Obi-Wan, who responds: "Only a Sith lord deals in absolutes." Yes, and so, it would seem, do neo-cons.

Should all of this matter? Nah. It's not going to spoil my enjoyment of the movie. And it's likely that only those closely attuned to politics with even pick up on it. But it will be interesting to watch Liberals in the weeks and months that follow the film's release to see if they've picked up on the same themes and if they start to include the "life imitating art" point to color their rantings.

Posted by: Gary at 11:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 342 words, total size 2 kb.

Today is John Bolton day...

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to vote on whether or not to forward the nomination of John Bolton for U.N. Ambassador to the full Senate today. After much hand-wringing by the Dems and delay after delay, Sen. Richard Lugar is confident that squishy GOP Senators Chafee, Hagel & Voinovich are in line.

Barring some unforeseen circumstances, the vote is expected to be 10-8, which will be followed by a full Senate vote to confirm.

Interestingly enough the MSM is not trumpeting the coming "showdown" today. Probably because they know the fight against Bolton is lost. But until it actually happens, I'm not going to hold my breath.

UPDATE: 8:45am
David Brooks at the NY Times: A Turning Tide For Bolton.

The momentum has shifted on the Bolton nomination because John Bolton turns out to be a more complicated figure than earlier portrayed. It's become clear that earlier tales of him chasing women down hallways are unreliable. It's become clear that while he's abrasive, he is professional. If Senator George Voinovich reads these transcripts before he votes, I'm sure Bolton will be confirmed.

Posted by: Gary at 07:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 2 kb.

"South Park Conservatives": The Review...

I have finished Brian C. Anderson's "South Park Conservatives" and heartily recommend it. Here is my rambling review:

At first glance, the title "South Park Conservatives" would seem to indicate that the goal of AndersonÂ’s book is to describe a new faction or sub-category of political stripe that can be found within the current make-up of the Republican party. But one need only to see the subtitle "The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias" to understand that what Anderson is describing is a sea-change in the overall political landscape that could very well determine the future of American politics. AndersonÂ’s thesis is that the seismic shift in several forms of media combined with the backlash against Liberal elitism is creating a movement the likes of which the United States hasnÂ’t seen in almost forty years.

Anderson establishes a baseline by describing the world we once knew, where the "old media" dictated what information the public received and how the information was delivered. In this context, he describes the development of what we know today as "Liberal bias". At the time, it was nearly undetectable because it was all America ever got. Liberalism became "illiberal" because it was and still is completely intolerant of any dissenting point of view. Conservatives were viewed as stereotypes and the mediaÂ’s ability to reinforce these stereotypes went largely unchallenged.

Then something happened. One by one, different forms of media began to act as agents of change. The other side was being heard and, in the free market of ideas, Conservatives not only got a fair hearing, the American public couldnÂ’t get enough. Anderson takes a chapter to describe the development of each of these outlets - talk radio, cable news, the blogosphere, book publishing and anti-Liberal television shows like "South Park".

For example, Anderson illustrates the eye-opening success of the Fox News Channel as an alternative to same old pap being dolled out by the networks:

"Fox viewers will see Republican politicians and conservative pundits sought out for meaningful quotations, skepticism voiced about environmentalist doomsaying, pro-life views given airtime, and much else they would never find on other networks." (p. 52)

None of this is news to Conservatives who have been reveling in the growth of these forms of media, but Anderson does a really good job of documenting how each type has had a tremendous effect in boxing Liberals into their own little echo-chamber. Try as they might to discredit the rise of Conservative ideas, Liberals found every one of their sacred cows being slaughtered. They had not been used to having their arguments challenged, and thus never learned the ability to articulate their beliefs in any rational way. So cries of "Bush Lied" and "fascism" have become a way of life for the Left.

Anderson finishes the book by examining the one territory that the Left can still claim to dominate - academia. However, their grasp is slipping in the face of a student body that is growing more and more Conservative. Just as the youth of the 1960's resented and rebelled against the "Establishment", the new college-age generation of the 21st century has had their fill of political correctness, speech codes and moral relativism. And 9/11 gave these kids a serious dose of reality. After years of hearing that there is no such thing as real evil and that the United States is an awful country, younger people have been given a context for fully understanding moral clarity. They don't need to be told who the good guys are.

When Anderson uses the term "South Park Conservative" (originally coined by Andrew Sullivan) he is talking not of a specific demographic but of a slice of the American population - particularly those under the age of 30 - that transcends across all backgrounds. And right-leaning college students gladly accept its definition.

"The label is really about rejecting the image of conservatives as uptight squares - crusty old men or nerdy kids in blue blazers." says Eric Spratling, an undergrad at Arizona State. (p. 99)

Nowadays, the elitist knee-jerk Liberals have become the humorless, stoggy sticks-in-the-mud, while the Conservatives are more and more becoming viewed as hip, funny and irreverent. Honestly, would you rather hang out with Ann Coulter and Jonah Goldberg or Al Franken and Frank Rich?

So is the Right winning the culture wars? Well, maybe itÂ’s more realistic to say that there is at least parity there. But the trends are in ConservatismÂ’s favor.

"South Park conservatism (or anti-liberalism) will become more prevalent in popular culture and on the campus. The political correctness that this brash sensibility skewers is anathema to younger Americans. The Left will have to abandon its PC illiberalism or continue to lose ground politically and culturally. The biggest changes still to come will be in academe."

Brian C. AndersonÂ’s book will make conservatives feel two things. One is an appreciation for just how far we have come in so short a time. The other is hope for the future, an inspiration to keep pressing on and to not let up. When conservative ideas are presented clearly and cogently, they make the current Liberal arguments seem all the more absurd. As Anderson explains in the closing paragraphs, the Left will have to "re-examine, argue and refine its positions, so many of which have proved disastrously wrong, and stop living in the past."

Posted by: Gary at 11:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 900 words, total size 6 kb.

Timewaster Deluxe: Zombie Shooter!!!

Thanks to Jonah Goldberg at The Corner.

If you like shooting zombies before they rip your head off, this is for you. A couple of tips:

• use your cursor to pinpoint where you want to shoot
• the big guys usually take more than one shot
• they're most vulnerable when they're getting up off the ground

Very addictive. Don't say I didn't warn you!! Now, go get 'em!!

Posted by: Gary at 04:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

Goofing on Drudge...

And his latest "news" discovery. I with definitely with Ace on this one. Take it down, Matt. Now.

Posted by: Gary at 04:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

GOP: After a rough spring, No More Mr. Nice-Party...

Tony Blankley's column today chronicles the girlie punches that the Republican party has been taking from Democrats since the election and observes that the GOP is - slowly, but surely - finally deciding to go on the offensive. With their stiffening support of House Majority Leader DeLay, the refusal to abandon Social Security reform and their decision to move forward in the face of opposition to John Bolton and Bush's judicial nominees, Republicans appear to have at last understood that the empty threats from Democrats are just that - empty.

After the donkeys with alligator masks on have jumped out from behind the capitol columns three or four times in succession in broad daylight shouting "boo," it has begun to dawn on the Republican elephants that the only danger to them is if they stumble down the steps in response to the "boo." The Democrats are powerless to do much of anything in national politics of a functional nature. All they can do is malfunction and hope to induce the Republicans to join them in their malfunctioning. By using angled light, the Democrats have been able to spend the winter and spring casting a larger shadow than their actual stature would justify.

Republicans - despite the stereotypes proliferated by the Left - have never been a historically aggressive bunch. But when push comes to shove, Blankley writes, the realization that they are the democratically-elected majority has begun to strengthen their resolve. Well, they have a chance to prove their mettle soon.

Next week should see the official trigger pulling in the Senate to kill the judicial filibuster. Then for the next three and three-quarter years, Mr. Bush, needing only 50 votes (plus the vice president's) will be able to nominate and have confirmed solid, smart conservative judges - most of them under 45 years old. He may replace up to four Supreme Court justices and a broad range of circuit justices. It will be an historic policy accomplishment that will last at least 30 years.

These are pivotal days for Bill Frist and the GOP, as an article in the Christian Science Monitor observes. The Senate Majority Leader, who has an eye on 2008, had hoped to spend his political capital and boost his "street cred" on less divisive issues.

But instead, he's investing more and more time and political capital on the fight over judges. Conservative activists say the most likely venue for a showdown over Senate rules will be the debate over confirmation of Priscilla Owen of Texas. "She's got a great story," says Manuel Miranda, chairman of the National Coalition to End Judicial Filibusters. A former nominations counsel for Senator Frist, Mr. Miranda resigned from the majority leader's office after leaking strategy memos from activist groups to Senate Democrats on which nominations to filibuster. Winning the fight over judges is "vitally important for his political future," says Miranda. "But even if he were not to run for president it's important for his legacy. He knows he will not be remembered for the class-action bill or the healthy forest initiative."

In any event, it's time for all Republicans to stop thinking about their personal long-term view and focus on the country's long-term benefit.

Posted by: Gary at 12:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 550 words, total size 4 kb.

Allen laying the groundwork for 2008...

Despite his focus on re-election to his Senate seat, George Allen of Virginia is actively fundraising for the long haul, reports The Hill.

Allen’s politics and personality are an easy sell among the politically savvy crowd at the fundraiser. Chauncey Hutter, who owns a tax-preparation company, backs Allen — even though the controversy over the judicial filibuster in Washington has caused him to lose confidence in the national GOP.

“They’re a bunch of wimps up there,” he said. “They should stand up to the Democrats. They’re acting like the minority party instead of the majority party.” Hutter said he recently got a fundraising call from the Republican National Committee. “I said, ‘I’m not giving you any money. I’m going to go to a shindig for George Allen.’”

I planning a post soon with a deeper analysis of Allen's career, positions on issues, voting records, etc. But so far, I like what I see. Part Reagan, part Jefferson, part W. So far there's nothing not to like. Except the middle name - Felix. Ugh. Maybe he has a political "bag of tricks"?

Posted by: Gary at 12:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 193 words, total size 1 kb.

And the Moonbats began their collective scream...

Dick Cheney does NOT have to disclose advice from Energy Task Force, says appeals court. The suit filed by the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch has finally been brushed aside. Executive priviledge triumphs.

"The outsider might make an important presentation, he might be persuasive, the information he provides might affect the committee's judgment," U.S. Appeals Court Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote. "But having neither a vote nor a veto over the advice the committee renders to the president, he is no more a member of the committee than the aides who accompany congressmen or Cabinet officers to
committee meetings."

Remember when the MSM pounded away on this story last year and warned it could bring down Bush's re-election chances?

Buwaaahaaaaahhaaaaahaaaa!!!!

Posted by: Gary at 06:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 133 words, total size 1 kb.

Where does you Guv stand?

A round-up of the approval ratings for all 50 State Governors, from surveyusa.com.

Posted by: Gary at 06:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

Kerry hits triple digits...

Polipundit notes that it's been 100 days since Sen. John "Francois Kerry" pledge to sign form SF-180 to formally release all of his military records. Still waiting....

Get the script for the Kerry Watch clock so you can keep track here.

Posted by: Gary at 10:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

"Old Yeller" backs the Marxist...

DNC Chair Howard Dean formally endorsed Congressman Bernie Sanders (I) for the VT Senate seat being vacated by "Jumpin" Jim Jeffords. Sanders, an honest-to-Gawd Socialist, is Vermont's sole member of Congress from the one and only seat that State gets.

The Ankle-Biting Pundits speculated about this possibility weeks ago and couldn't be happier.

I think this endorsement from Mad Howard should be a GOP talking point from today until November, 2006. I'm interested to see how the southern and more conservative Democrats who have to run in places which, unlike Vermont, aren't commune-like socialist paradises, respond to this one. My guess is they can't get their sneakers on fast enough to run from this one. Again, Democrats, thank you for electing this guy your boss.

I can hear the "humana-humana-humana"s from the Red-State Democrat Senators now.

Posted by: Gary at 01:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.

The Huffington Train Wreck...

Well, it hasn't been online for even 36 hours, but the Huffington Post is already being hailed as a complete disaster by Nikki Finke in LA Weekly:

This Web-site venture is the sort of failure that is simply unsurvivable, because of all the advance publicity touting its success as inevitable. Her blog is such a bomb that it's the box-office equivalent of Gigli, Ishtar and Heaven's Gate rolled into one. In magazine terms, it's the disastrous clone of Tina Brown's Talk, JFK Jr.'s George or Maer Roshan's Radar. No matter what happens to Huffington, it's clear Hollywood will suffer the consequences.

It almost seems like some sick hoax. Perhaps Huffington is no longer a card-carrying progressive but now a conservative mole. Because she served up liberal celebs like red meat on a silver platter for the salivating and Hollywood-hating right wing to chew up and spit out.

The most glaring problem is the lack of "A-list" celebrity bloggers who showed up to christen the new venture. It seems all the talk by Arianna of bringing in the big names was a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

"The reality is that she is running around with a lot of names not only in terms of bloggers and so-called investors. And a lot of it is a little bit of a shell game," a source told me pre-launch. "You know the standard game. You call someone and say, ‘I've got X committed for X amount of money.' That's what she did with David. He was not aware that she's using his name as an investor." I'm told that, once Geffen was alerted, his people had to speak to Huffington and "straighten it out."

But not only is Geffen not an investor, he's not even a blogger. "I asked him, ‘Are you going to be doing a blog for Arianna's thing?' and he said no," a source informed me. At the time, Geffen didn't want to attract attention to himself by going public with his denial, I'm told. Besides, a source close to Geffen said to me, "He sends me two-word e-mails. He's not going to write a blog for her or anyone."

Full disclosure: I haven't visited the site. I don't really have to. Michelle Malkin links to Laurence Simon's Huffington Is Full Of Crap, which provides "cut and paste" versions of the most asinine posts as well as running commentary for each - Huffington apparently doesn't have the cojones to provide a "comments" function on the site.

Posted by: Gary at 08:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 424 words, total size 3 kb.

Judicial Showdown to be triggered by Justice Owen?

The Washington Times is reporting this a.m. that Sen. Bill Frist is planning to unleash the "nuclear option" (I know it's a misleading term, but it's the prevailing one these days) later this month with the nomination of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen.

The Republican sources, both on and off Capitol Hill, say the choice of Justice Owen for the precedent-setting vote is based in part on the political calculation that she is a sure winner and, as one source said, "a great face" for this issue.

She has impeccable academic credentials, received the highest rating from the American Bar Association and is supported by both Republicans and Democrats who know her.

I agree that this "strategery" is a good one, but the sooner the better. To steal a catchphrase from Victor David Hanson - "faster, please".

Posted by: Gary at 07:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.

The Shape of Things To Come?

Blog Investigations - a very scary concept as illustrated by The American Spectator. Read this "mock" letter all the way through and you can see the potential future of Campaign Finance Reform coming to a blog near you - yours.

Posted by: Gary at 07:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

Speculation and Scuttlebutt...

NRO's Rich Lowry speaks with an unnamed GOP Senator and gets the latest on Bolton, Judicial Nominees, Social Security and Immigration. Interesting.

Posted by: Gary at 11:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

George Allen talks like a Republican...

I was perusing the transcript of Fox News Sunday from yesterday and I really like VA Senator George Allen's comments on judicial nominations. This guy is looking more and more like my favorite for the 2008 nomination. Here's a sampling.

On John Bolton:

What I've seen on the nomination of John Bolton is a lot of innuendo, hearsay and a lot of rumors. And every single one of their charges and allegations have been refuted. They want to avoid looking at John Bolton's outstanding record of performance as one who will actually bring to the United Nations accountability, which is great for the taxpayers.

On allowing up or down votes:

I have a responsibility as a United States senator to advise and consent on judicial nominations. And that has been denied me and the people of Virginia and the people of across this country for their senators to have the gumption and the backbone to get off their haunches and vote yes or vote no on these judges.

On the actions of the Democrats:

People are motivated on this issue, and the architect of this obstruction, the chief obstructionist, Tom Daschle, is a former Democratic leader. And so I think the people of this country expect Republicans to act. We should not cower.

It's so refreshing to hear statements like this when so many Republican Senators act like such complete wusses nowadays.

Posted by: Gary at 10:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.

Taxes Cut, Economy Up, Deficit Down...

Coincidence? I think not.

The Washington Times' David Lambro crows as "voo-doo" economics works once again.

We hit a record $412 billion deficit in the 2004 fiscal year, up from $378 billion in 2003 and $158 billion in 2002. Four months ago, administration officials forecast a $427 billion deficit for this year.

As a result of Treasury's latest surplus figures, Wall Street analysts now project this year's deficit will be around $370 billion, possibly as low as $365 billion, maybe lower if economic growth picks up later this year.

Lambro admits that the size of the deficit is considerable but, relatively speaking, it's no where near as high as the deficits of the 1980's when you look at it as a percentage of the size of total GDP. So what happened? Supply-side economics, of course. It worked in the 1960's, in the 1980's and it's working again.

There's an important lesson to be learned from the fed's declining deficit figures: An expanding economy is the only way to shrink the deficit, and lower tax rates spur faster economic growth. That is what led to last week's lower deficit projections and a temporary surplus in revenues.

Another lesson: Don't listen to the pessimists who wrongly predicted a fiscal and economic disaster from the deficits that never materialized. The deficits were largely the result of the war on terrorism costs that followed the September 11, 2001, attacks and the following economic dislocations that and sharply cut federal and state tax revenues.

As any business knows, when costs rise and revenues fall, you end up with a loss or deficit. We recovered relatively quickly from all that, thanks to hard-working Americans and a resilient economy. Interest rates did not soar as some predicted. The economy did not worsen, as others said. Unemployment did not climb, it fell, and the American economy got back on track.

Damn, it must drive Democrats crazy.

Posted by: Gary at 04:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 330 words, total size 2 kb.

Mark Fuhrman investigating Shiavo case...

At the behest of FoxNews' Sean Hannity:

Hannity said he personally contacted Fuhrman in March to suggest he probe a myriad of unresolved questions about Ms. Schiavo's condition, including a 1991 bone scan report showing that Schiavo suffered fractures sometime prior to being found unconscious in her home in February 1990.

Schiavo's family has said repeatedly that they suspect Terri's condition was the result of a violent fight she had with her husband, Michael. Police never probed the case for evidence of assault because by the time the bone scan became public in 2002, the statute of limitations had run.

Fuhrman's investigation would be the first to review the case for evidence of a possible crime. "

All I can say," the talk host told his "Hannity & Colmes" audience, "is that this is not over. Stay tuned."

Fuhrman's book "Murder in Greenwich" was widely credited with blowing the lid off the Moxley-Skakel case.

Hat Tip from The Corner

Posted by: Gary at 01:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

More on Hillary: The MSM musn't help those mean Republicans...

Peter Beinart of The New Republic is whining in today's WaPo that those evil GOP operatives are preparing to unfairly attack the NY Senator's recent well-documented "shift" to the center. He argues that - as in the last three Presidential elections - Republicans will attack her character as a flip-flopper with no "moral core". But his main points are that 1) this is an unfair tactic and 2) the MSM - if not careful - will unwittingly do much of the opposition's dirty work for them by reporting it so much.

The "Hillary moves to the center" story line dovetails perfectly with this character attack. How far will Clinton "go to become president"? So far that she'll radically change what she believes. When Clinton recently said that religion played a central role in her life, New York Conservative Party leader Michael Long told the New York Times, "All of a sudden she is saying she has these deep convictions. . . . I don't believe that. It's clear to me that she is getting ready to launch her candidacy for presidency, and she will become whatever she has to become to appeal to centrist voters." Implicitly endorsing that view, the Times headline read, "As Clinton Shifts Themes, Debate Arises On Her Motives."

He then goes on to pathetically try and convince his readers that, yes, she really is a "moderate". It's just that the grand Rove-ian conspiracy is painting Clinton with stereotypes.

Republicans will exploit that stereotype in their effort to keep Clinton from the Oval Office. But before playing along, the press should first figure out whether it's actually true.

Implicit in this statement is that the press is rooting for her in the first place, which is a given at this point. But I don't know who Beinart thinks he's fooling. The fact is even most of Hillary's supporters don't believe she's a moderate and no one from the base of the party to the MoveOn.org moonbats want her to be. And here is the real crux of her problem that she and past Democrat Presidential candidates have had: to get the nomination she will have to convince the Left that she really is singing from their songbook. To get elected she has to pretend she really didn't mean it.

The voters are not stupid and they know a phony when they see one. And they may be willing to "look the other way" if the phony in question is charming enough. Clinton's husband was a scoundrel but also a brilliant politician with a gift for connecting with voters. Not so with Hillary. And her transparent political machinations are so blatantly obvious, no one needs the MSM to help them figure it out.

Posted by: Gary at 09:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 473 words, total size 3 kb.

Time Magazine: Hillary in 2008? No Way...

Joe Klein, author of the loosely-based Clinton campaign novel Primary Colors says Hillary shouldn't run and won't win and that her candidacy in 2008 "would be a disaster on many levels". Why?

She has a clenched, wary public presence, which won't work well in an electorate that prizes aw-shucks informality; she isn't a particularly warm or eloquent speaker, especially in front of large audiences. Any woman running for President will face a toughness conundrum: she will constantly have to prove her strength and be careful about showing her emotions. She won't have the luxury of, say, Bill Clinton's public sogginess. It will take a brilliant politician to create a credible feminine presidential style. So far, Senator Clinton hasn't shown the ease or creativity necessary to break the ultimate glass ceiling.

I definitely agree with him there, but his other major reason is that the electorate may already have Clinton-fatigue. And that another Clinton Presidency would be as unpalatable as another (Jeb) Bush Presidency. Of this I'm not as sure although he makes a compelling case:

"You mean she can't run just because her husband was President?" a Hillary supporter yelled at me. "That is the most incredibly sexist thing I've ever heard." Yes and no. My guess is that Hillary Clinton would roll into Iowa with an incredible, Howard Dean-like head of steam in January 2008, and then the folks—yes, even the Democratic base—would give her a very close look and conclude that a Hillary presidency would be slightly dodgy. The Clinton line in 1992 was, Buy one, get one free. We've already had that co-presidency—for its full, constitutional eight years. What's more, I suspect there would be innate and appropriate populist resistance to this slouch toward monarchial democracy. There is something fundamentally un-American—and very European—about the Clintons and the Bushes trading the office every eight years, with stale, familiar corps of retainers, supporters and enemies.

Posted by: Gary at 06:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 2 kb.