Sunday, February 10, 2019

Ocasio-Cortez Doubles Down On 'Free-Money For Lazy People' FAQ Debacle

zerohedge
Tyler Durden

 Feb 9, 2019


 Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has inserted her foot squarely in her mouth as her "Green New Deal" PR nightmare continues. 

After removing an embarrassing FAQ from her website which failed to match the environmental legislation package she introduced on Thursday, one of her advisers went on Fox News' Tucker Carlson Tonight and lied about it.

The now-deleted version of the FAQ originally uploaded by AOC's office contained an absurd provision for "economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work," a phrase which AOC adviser Robert Hockett - a Cornell law professor, claimed came from a "doctored document."
"I think you’re referring to some sort of document that some, I think some doctored document that somebody other than us has been circulating," said Hockett in response to Carlson's question about the "unwilling to work" statement. 

"Oh, I thought that came right from her, that was in the backgrounder from her office, is my understanding," Carlson replied. 

"No, no. She’s actually tweeted it out to laugh at it. If you look at her latest tweets, it seems that apparently, some Republicans have put it out there."

Making it worse, AOC and her Chief of Staff are now continuing to bullshit people about it over Twitter!


And as if the Green New Deal hadn't generated enough negative attention this week, President Trump chimed in with a tweet mocking the plan that is almost guaranteed to draw a response from AOC herself.



Thank You Mr Durden, Zerohedge, and President Trump for rubbing it in.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Saturday, February 9, 2019

Green New Deal Will Stifle Green Energy Innovation, Expert Says

freebeacon
Elizabeth Harrington
February 7, 2019 2:30 pm

'Socialist manifesto' could increase electric bills by $3,800 per year

The "Green New Deal" will produce the opposite of its intended goal of reducing carbon emissions by stifling energy innovation, according to an expert at the American Enterprise Institute.

Democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez released her proposal Thursday. The 10-year plan calls for the "economic transformation" of the United States, the elimination of air travel, replacement or upgrade of every building, and a guaranteed federal job with paid vacation for every person in America even if they are "unwilling to work."

Ocasio-Cortez is light on the details of how to finance the deal, estimated at anywhere between $2 trillion and $5.7 trillion, "or more."

"At the end of the day, this is an investment in our economy that should grow our wealth as a nation," Ocasio-Cortez said. "So the question isn't how will we pay for it, but what will we do with our new shared prosperity."

AEI resident fellow Alex Brill explained last week that regardless of cost, the unintended consequences of the Green New Deal are "the worst imaginable."

Brill writes that the Green New Deal's financing through bureaucratic funding schemes could "inhibit clean technology and energy efficiency innovation," because grants will "inevitably be earmarked for investments that can be defined using only tools and technologies already at hand."

Energy innovation in the private sector would also be inhibited as private companies would seek federal financing instead of private investment for green energy projects. Brill cites transportation spending data that show highway spending in President Barack Obama's nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill in 2009 actually "reduced state spending on highway projects by 81 cents."

Brill also notes the funding process would be political by nature, as inevitably Green New Deal projects would go to those that are preferred by powerful liberal lawmakers in Congress.

"Some lawmakers will insist on a certain level of investment in solar projects, while others will demand more money for wind turbines or geothermal power," Brill writes. "The final allocation will depend on the relative clout of the lawmakers and will inefficiently differ from the allocations that consumers and producers would demand."

"In short, the Green New Deal would be a deficit financed expansion of federal bureaucratic power to dictate investment decisions in one of the most dynamic sectors of the economy," Brill concludes.

Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wyo.) called the Green New Deal a "raw deal for the taxpayer" that would increase electric bills by up to $3,800 per year.

"It's a socialist manifesto that lays out a laundry list of government giveaways, including guaranteed food, housing, college, and economic security even for those who refuse to work," Barrasso said. "As Democrats take a hard left turn, this radical proposal would take our growing economy off the cliff and our nation into bankruptcy. It's the first step down a dark path to socialism."

Barrasso said the solution to lower emissions is through private innovation.

"I want to make American energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, without raising costs for consumers," he said. "We can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by supporting new innovative technologies like advanced nuclear power, carbon capture, and carbon utilization. Innovation, not regulation, will lead to lower emissions and a stronger economy."

Thank You Ms Harrington and Free Beacon.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

WSJ Columnist Takes Little 'Socialist That Could' Ocasio-Cortez To The Woodshed Over Her Moronic New Green Deal

townhall
Matt Vespa
Matt Vespa
|
 @mvespa1
|
Posted: Feb 08, 2019 2:05 PM
WSJ Columnist Takes Little 'Socialist That Could' Ocasio-Cortez To The Woodshed Over Her Moronic New Green Deal

It’s a fine line. I’m not one to attack Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) on everything because that is what the Left does with Trump, but when it comes to policy that could destroy the country, curb freedom, and relegate this nation to something out of a socialist hellhole, then by all means, go at it.

This week, Ocasio-Cortez, one of the faces of the far left, pitched her New Green Deal, which was rightfully laughed out of the room. It called for a complete transition away from fossil fuels…within a decade, upgrading all buildings in the country, and the slaughter of all cows because their farts produce methane. No, I’m not kidding. Oh, and “economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.”
The Wall Street Journal’sKimberley Strassel read the proposal, had a good laugh, and then proceeded to take the little socialist that could” to the woodshed for having a brain dead agenda that, in keeping with Democratic social policy tradition, leaves out the price tag and the taxes that would need to be applied to pay for all of this. We all saw how the same people reacted to when pressed about Medicare for All. They had no answer, though we all had a ballpark figure: some $30+ trillion in the first ten years.
On Thursday Ms. Ocasio-Cortez unveiled her vaunted Green New Deal, complete with the details of how Democrats plan to reach climate nirvana in a mere 10 years. It came in the form of a resolution, sponsored in the Senate by Massachusetts’ Edward Markey, on which AOC is determined to force a full House vote. That means every Democrat in Washington will get to go on the record in favor of abolishing air travel, outlawing steaks, forcing all American homeowners to retrofit their houses, putting every miner, oil rigger, livestock rancher and gas-station attendant out of a job, and spending trillions and trillions more tax money. Oh, also for government-run health care, which is somehow a prerequisite for a clean economy.
It’s a GOP dream, especially because the media presented her plan with a straight face—as a legitimate proposal from a legitimate leader in the Democratic Party. Republicans are thrilled to treat it that way in the march to 2020, as their set-piece example of what Democrats would do to the economy and average Americans if given control. The Green New Deal encapsulates everything Americans fear from government, all in one bonkers resolution.
It is for starters, a massive plan for the government to take over and micromanage much the economy. Take the central plank, its diktat of producing 100% of U.S. electricity “through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources” by 2030. As Ron Bailey at Reason has noted, a 2015 plan from Stanford envisioning the goal called for the installation of 154,000 offshore wind turbines, 335,000 onshore wind turbines, 75 million residential photovoltaic (solar) systems, 2.75 million commercial solar systems, and 46,000 utility-scale solar facilities. AOC has been clear it will be government building all this, not the private sector.
Buried in the details, the Green New Deal also promises government control of the most fundamental aspects of private life. The fact sheet explains why the resolution doesn’t call for “banning fossil fuels” or for “zero” emissions across the entire economy—at least at first. It’s because “we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast” (emphasis mine).
This is an acknowledgment that planes don’t run on anything but fossil fuel. No jet fuel, no trips to see granny. It’s also an acknowledgment that livestock produce methane, which has led climate alarmists to engage in “meatless Mondays.” AOC may not prove able to eradicate “fully” every family Christmas or strip of bacon in a decade, but that’s the goal.
Alas, why I, and I’m sure many others, very much liked President Trump’s declaration that this nation has to remain free, and that “America will never be a socialist country.”


Thank You Mr Vespa and Townhall.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

American Suspension Of INF Treaty Is Aimed At China

zerohedge
by Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/08/2019 - 23:45
Authored by Anatoly Karlin via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

So it’s done. The US has suspended its participation in the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, and Russia soon followed suit. This almost certainly spells an end to this late Cold War relic, which banned the two superpowers from deploying ground-launched ballistic missiles and cruise missiles with ranges of 500-5,500km. There have been recriminations all round. But in the end, so far as two of the world’s three most greatest military Powers are concerned, upholding the INF Treaty could never have been done exactly to the letter.



The US has specified Russia’s Novator 9M729 (NATO designation: SSC-8) as the offending missile that finally prompted US action. Russian nuclear weapons analyst Pavel Podvig has noted that it is very similar to the Russian Navy’s Kalibr-NK cruise missile, which has a range well beyond 500 km and has been touted as a potential “carrier killer”. Podvig goes on to speculate that if the US had observed a test of the 9M729 from a land-based Iskander-M launcher – even if on just a single occasion – then all of them “would have to be eliminated” by the formal terms of the treaty. This is obviously not something that Russia could reasonably be expected to carry out.

Moreover, any number of US missile systems can be considered to be in breach of the INF Treaty. For instance, the Russians have argued that America’s AEGIS Ashore program – a ground-based cruise missile, for all intents and purposes – can also be considered to be in systemic breach of the INF Treaty. Incidentally, this system was itself enabled by America’s unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia in 2002, under the George W. Bush administration.

Trump has been taking heat for the INF withdrawal from the usual quarters. For instance, the top comment on this story at r/politics – a bastion of online Trump/Putin Derangement Syndrome – lambasts the US President for spoiling America’s image and letting down its allies instead of sanctioning Russia. (Naturally, no mention of where exactly it says that breaking the Treaty is grounds for such). In reality, dissatisfaction with the INF Treaty had been building up for years within the previous Obama administration, and NATO has released a statement of support for Trump’s decision. There is no significant division on this matter either within US political circles, or its transatlantic allies.

Because at the end of the day, rhetoric to the contrary, nobody really cares about the INF Treaty within Europe. Force levels on both sides of the border between the West and Russia – which has moved 1,000-1,500 km to the east, in large part thanks to NATO’s broken promises not to expand – are at a small fraction of Cold War levels. Few seriously believe that Russia has any territorial designs on the Baltics, and even on the off chance that it does, it’s not like the 9M729 is going to make any cardinal difference.

However, it is with respect to the balance of power in the West Pacific that the restrictions imposed by the INF on the US – but not on China – come into play. While consensus expert opinion holds that the US still retains dominance in the South China Sea vis-à-vis China, its margin of superiority is shrinking year by year. In a 2015 report, the RAND Corporation estimated that the number of US air wings required to defeat a surge of attacking Chinese aircraft over Taiwan increased from just a couple in 1996 to 30 by 2017. In a subsequent report released in the following year, we see the balance of power in potential China-US conflict scenarios shift from a terminal Chinese disadvantage in 1996, to parity over Taiwan by 2017 (though they believe that the US still holds a decisive advantage in a conflict over the Spratly Islands). Even so, it is especially notable that the only two categories in a conflict over Taiwan in which RAND now considers China to hold an advantage – “Chinese attacks on air bases” and “Chinese anti-surface warfare” – are both spheres in which intermediate-range ballistic missiles would play an important role.

This is not just my supposition. In another 2016 RAND report, tellingly titled “War with China: Thinking Through the Unthinkable”, this consideration is stated openly and forthrightly:
“US land-based missiles from 500 km to 5,500 km are prohibited by the INF treaty, whereas the Chinese missiles are not, giving China a significant advantage.”
It has long been obvious that the US (correctly) regards China as the real long-term threat to its global hegemony. Meanwhile, Russia is a mere nuisance, a “dying bear” that is ever approaching collapse, in the wake of which Moscow will have no choice but to sign up to America’s China containment project. (Sure, this sounds like a crazy ideological narrative, and it is – but the US policy of alienating Russia and drawing it into a quasi-alliance with China is even crazier – just ask Kissinger). But like it or not, this really is how the American elites think, and it can’t be denied that there is a certain logic to it.

In this context, withdrawal from the INF Treaty – with Russia’s alleged violations as pretext – is just the logical next step to the military component of Obama’s “pivot to Asia”, one that the US is entirely happy to continue and follow through with. It really is as banal as that.


Thank You Mr Durden and Zerohedge.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

12,000 Chinese Blood Treatments Found To Be Contaminated With HIV

zerohedge
Tyler Durden Feb 8, 2019
by Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/08/2019 - 20:05
Just as China's Lunar New Year is being rung in, the ruling communist party is facing another major healthcare scandal.

One of the country's state run pharmaceutical companies found the HIV virus present in an estimated 12,000 doses of immunoglobulin treatment, an immune therapy treatment made with antibodies from blood plasma. The state-owned Shanghai Xinxing Pharmaceutical Company, China’s second-biggest medical blood products manufacturer, notified authorities on Tuesday of the news, according to China's National Health Commission.

In response, the National Health Commission (NHC) warned hospitals to immediately suspend use of the batch after the provincial health commission and disease control center of eastern China’s Jiangxi detected traces of HIV in it.

This contamination is the latest in a long line of shocking failures by the Chinese healthcare system, which has included the deliberate use of expired polio vaccines on children to save money, a scandal which eventually forced President Xi to apologize, especially after public anger spilled over, resulting in protests which ended violently for the parents involved.

But that paled in comparison with July’s vaccine scandal, in which 252,600 faulty rabies vaccines made by Changchun Changsheng Bio-technology, one of China’s biggest vaccine firms, were administered to thousands of toddlers.

Even worse, the news comes just two weeks after the communist party announced a new campaign to fight the "rampant irregularities" in the Chinese healthcare system according to the SCMP.



And with socialism all the rage in the US these days, perhaps this is an opportune moment to remind readers that China offers a free and functional healthcare system to its people - these are the results.
Back to the latest scandal, where while already 12,000 batches of contaminated treatments were found to carry HIV, the government left open the possibility that more cases could soon be found, as the company urged government officials to "continuously observe and monitor" patients who had received the treatment.

Luckily, the Jiangxi Provincial Disease Control Centre which administers the region covering Shanghai Emerging Medicine Holdings, reported that no patients have tested positive for HIV at that location so far, although since this is China, one should take any and all official "news" with an uncontaminated rock of salt.

Ironically, the company's intravenous treatment is used to help "strengthen" peoples immune systems and is commonly used for patients with cancer or other diseases that affect the body’s ability to fight off infections. A dosage of HIV, needless to say, would lead to the opposite outcome.

One head of haematology at a Shanghai hospital told SCMP that "if this is true, it would be a very low-end error,” the unnamed doctor was quoted as saying. “Right now, the crucial point is to make clear whether it was caused by a blood donor or a problem with the product.

"We need to find out where the faulty batch was delivered and carry out a recall and re-examination."
He also said that patients treated with faulty blood plasma may not necessarily be infected with HIV, because there was an anti-virus treatment in the preparation process.

“[Patients] would need to be tested again to find out whether they were specifically infected,” he was quoted as saying.

Since the scandal first emerged nobody has said how the HIV became present in the treatments in the first place, however so far, state officials have tried to place the blame for these shocking cases of medical negligence squarely on China's private sector.

In November, the government consulted the first draft of a vaccine management law that would allow people to sue drug makers for punitive damages in cases of death or serious illness caused by faulty vaccines.

Health Medical Pharma
 
 
Thank You Mr Durden and Zerohedge.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

How Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal" Almost Imploded On Its First Day

zerohedge
by Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/08/2019 - 13:05
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal" initiative was immediately met with a torrent of ridicule after its unveiling on Thursday, not just by climate change deniers but also by establishment Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, who dismissed it as a "green dream" and insisted that there were other, more practical, ways to fight climate change than banning cow farts and airplanes.

But in what's looking like a staggeringly haphazard rollout, the controversy over the plan continued on Friday when co-sponsor Ed Markey, the Massachusetts Senator who was the plan's lead backer in the Senate, slammed Ocasio-Cortez and the plan's "fact sheet" for calling for a ban on nuclear power, which supplies roughly 50% of America's carbon-free energy. 

Green

Here's more from Bloomberg:
Giselle Barry, a spokeswoman for Senator Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who is the Green New Deal’s lead Senate backer, disowned the fact sheet and said Markey’s office wasn’t consulted before it was sent out. "We did not draft that fact sheet," she said.
Markey sought to do damage control at a midday press conference, emphasizing the proposed resolution doesn’t address specific energy technologies. Language on nuclear power “is not part of this legislation,” he said. “The resolution is silent on any individual technology that can move us to a solution.”
Not only did the nuclear power provision annoy potential supporters of the deal who see nuclear power as an essential component of any carbon-free energy infrastructure, it also revealed how difficult it might be to "build consensus" around such an extreme, radical collection of proposals. But that wasn't the only criticism of the plan lobbed by other green-energy advocates. 

Many, including former Obama Administration Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, argued that the goal of shifting the US economy to 100% renewable energy within 10 years simply wasn't realistic. And pursuing such an aggressive milestone would put too much pressure on important constituencies of the left like, for example, labor unions.
“I’m sure it has some co-sponsors scratching their heads,” said Jeff Navin, who served as acting chief of staff for Ernest Moniz, President Barack Obama’s energy secretary.
Moniz himself said that it may be impossible to achieve zero carbon emissions in 10 years, as the plan calls for.
"It’s just impracticable," Moniz told National Public Radio. "And what concerns me about that is if we start putting out impracticable targets we may lose a lot of key constituencies that we need to bring along."
He cited labor unions as an example.
"We cannot strand too many assets and frankly stand too many workers with impracticable unrealizable objectives," Moniz said. "We will jeopardize what I think has been the very significant movement of the large energy companies toward developing their new business models to function in a low carbon world."
Others insisted that any renewable energy plan that doesn't include nuclear power (which is a controversial subject among the green energy set) would be doomed to fail.
“Any approach to eliminating greenhouse-gas emissions requires all clean energy technologies, including nuclear, to work together to address that urgent problem,” Maria Korsnick, the group’s president said in a statement issued after the Green New Deal was unveiled.
Thursday’s kerfuffle over nuclear might just be a taste of things to come.
"These are ideological documents - not legislative blueprints,” said Paul Bledsoe, strategic adviser at the Progressive Policy Institute. It will get even tougher “when you actually have to create legislative language.”
Considering the walk-backs and infighting that have arisen already, the unveiling of AOC's signature multi-trillion "green plan" has made the first Trump travel ban rollout almost look orderly in comparison.


 Do you Really want to let These people have control of your money and your Liberties, Your Rights?

Cow Farts?

Thank You Mr Durden and Zerohedge.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

"WTF Is Going On In Downtown LA?": Army War Drills Continue Across Los Angeles

zerohedge
Tyler Durden Feb 8, 2019
by Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/08/2019 - 22:05
Having started on Monday, the US Army continues its war drills across the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area through Saturday with the goal of enhancing Army Special Forces skills by "operating in urban environments", Army Special Operations Command said in a statement.


Residents around Los Angeles may hear sounds associated with the field training exercise, including helicopters and weapon simulations, according to the statement.

"The local terrain and training facilities in Los Angeles provide the Army with unique locations and simulates urban environments the service members may encounter when deployed overseas," the Army told CBS.

Downtown Los Angeles residents were shocked Monday night when a fleet of Boeing A/MH-6M Little Bird and Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters swooped in around them.
A commercial parking lot across the street from the Regal Cinemas L.A. LIVE 14, at 1000 W Olympic Blvd, was the epicenter of some intense war simulations Tuesday night.
Newchopper4 Bravo was overhead as Special Forces performed training exercises in the parking lot, then were extracted by helicopters before taking off over the 110 Freeway while police blocked nearby intersections.
There were other field training exercises that were on the perimeter of the city, away from populated areas and toward the San Pedro Bay port Tuesday night and into early Wednesday morning.
The Army leased space in an industrially zoned area around the Port of Los Angeles near Terminal Island for field training exercises Wednesday night, according to Phillip Sanfield, a spokesman for the L.A. port. Port operations at Long Beach, the second largest port in the US, were not affected, port spokesman Lee Peterson told the Los Angeles Times.

Sanfield said residents living on houseboats in marinas around Wilmington were notified they might hear helicopters, explosions, and simulated assault rifle fire.
“There is no replacement for realistic training. Each location selected enables special operations teams and flight crews to maintain maximum readiness and proficiency, validate equipment and exercise standard safety procedures. The training is essential to ensure service members are fully trained and prepared to defend our nation overseas.”
The Army Special Operations Command conducts multiple urban field training exercises around the country, said Lt. Col. Loren Bymer, a spokesman for the command group.
“It wouldn’t be unheard of to train in Boston or Miami,” he said.
“It takes a lot of planning and coordination to do this safely.”
This is not the first time residents of a major metropolitan area across the US have experienced a military exercise. For instance, in 2015, Texas residents prepared for Jade Helm 15, an army training exercise which took place in multiple states.

As to what exactly the Army was preparing for by simulating war drills on the streets of Los Angeles was beyond our comprehension. One thing that is obvious: the Army is preparing for more conflict, whether with a foreign adversary or, more troubling, social unrest on the streets of America?

Thank You Mr Durden and Zerohedge.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Friday, February 8, 2019

Pelosi Stacks Climate Committee with Dems Backed by Energy Interests

Here's a 'special' post for those who believe in man made global warming.

freebeacon
Haris Alic
February 8, 2019 1:45 pm

Democratic speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) has appointed to the special committee on climate change members who have all received significant backing from the energy industry.

On Thursday, Pelosi named Democratic representatives Ben Lujan (N.M.), Suzanne Bonamici (Ore.), Julia Brownley (Calif.), Sean Casten (Ill.), Jared Huffman (Calif.), Mike Levin (Calif.), Donald McEachin (Va.), and Joe Neguse (Colo.) to the newly reconstituted House Select Committee on Climate Crisis. The panel, which will be chaired Democratic congresswoman Kathy Castor (Fla.), is tasked with developing "innovative, effective solutions to prevent and reverse the climate crisis."

"We are thrilled to welcome so many visionary leaders and strong voices to our new Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, which will be vital in advancing ambitious progress for our planet," Pelosi said in a statement announcing the appointments. "Each Member brings great energy and deep expertise to the climate crisis, which jeopardizes our public health, our economy, our national security and the whole of God’s creation."

Despite the speaker's confidence in the energy and expertise of her appointees, it is unclear if their history of taking campaign contributions from large energy conglomerates will prove problematic.

Castor, who has pledged to reject campaign contributions from fossil fuel interests, has taken more than $72,000 from individuals and political action committees associated with the energy and natural resources industry since joining Congress in 2007. The majority of the funds—approximately $59,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics—came from PACs linked to the industry. As reported by the Washington Free Beacon, Castor previously owned stock in companies with troubling environmental records.

Similarly, Bonamici ($87,963), Brownley ($55,789), Casten ($46,259), Huffman ($118,310), Levin ($42,143), and McEachin ($62,364) all received significant backing from the industry throughout their congressional careers.

By far the largest recipient of industry contributions was Lujan, a member of Pelosi's leadership team who previously served as the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Since entering the House in 2009, Lujan has taken more than $522,000 from individuals and PACs linked to energy interests. Of that total, more than $438,000 came from PACs belonging to companies like BP, which donated $7,500 to Lujan in 2018 alone.

Neguse, a freshman from Colorado, was the smallest recipient with only $3,316 flowing from energy interests to his campaign.

The more liberal members of the House majority have already raised concerns about the committee's impotence. Unlike permanent congressional committees, it will not have the ability to issue subpoenas or introduce legislation. Instead, the panel will only have the ability to advise and issue recommendations.

The speaker's office did not return requests for comment on this story.

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged Climate Change, Congress, Energy, House Democrats, Nancy Pelosi. Bookmark the permalink. 


Thank You Freebeacon, 
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)