13 February, 2010

Al-Jazeera Invades Canada and Threatens America



FREEDOM OF SPEECH, US-american style.


Fact: Almost nobody watches Al-Jazeera in the USA or
Canada. There is reported ly 1 (one) cable channel that
gives this valuable channel to viewers PART-TIME! Not
even BBC Worldservice -- firmly in the service of power
and in favour of anglo-american dominance -- is being
watched by US-americans!! But AlJazeera is outright
censored.

Like in most western anglo-american ruled nations, the
corporate neo-fascist "news" channels FOX, CNN, MSNBC
are without any competition. Orwell could not have
dreamt of a better system. 1984 is here.

One moment!  Have you actually watched Al Jazeera?  
You'd be amazed at the high quality reporting that
flies in the face of US-war party patriotist idiot TV


But now, please read the hate-filled anti-free speech
rant!!

Executive Summary:  You -- the viewer -- are to weak to
resist the AlJazera propaganda, you need to be
"protected". Hahaha.



Al-Jazeera Invades Canada and Threatens America

Written by Cliff Kincaid    -- Wednesday, 10 February 2010 18:39

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications
Commission (CRTC) has approved a request "to add
Al-Jazeera English (AJE) to the list of television
satellite services for distribution in Canada.
Supporters of the Arab government-funded propaganda
channel hope that acceptance in Canada will lead to
more cable and satellite carriers in the U.S. picking
up the incendiary network."

A group called "Canadians for Al-Jazeera" organized
public pressure on the CRTC to approve the entry of AJE
into the Canadian media market. Although the group's
leader, Walied Khogali, is described in news reports as
a Canadian, he identifies himself on his Facebook page
as a fan of Barack and Michelle Obama, Students for
Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

He supports "the Red Movement" that mainly acts to
protest Israeli policies and promotes the "I love
Allah" T-shirt and the "Bush shoe thrower" from Iraq.

But Philip J. Crowley, Assistant Secretary of State in
the Bureau for Public Affairs, criticized Al-Jazeera's
coverage of the Haiti relief effort at the State
Department press briefing on January 26. "When you're
talking about international reporting," he said, "we
have had-I've had direct conversations with our friends
at Al-Jazeera, for example. And we have spent some time
critiquing what we felt was unfair, unbalanced coverage
of operations in Haiti." He explained that he had "a
conversation" with "officials at [the] Al-Jazeera,
English channel" about "inflammatory" coverage
suggesting that U.S. relief efforts in Haiti
constituted a military plan to take over the country.

More serious and severe criticism has come from Judea
Pearl, father of slain Wall Street Journal reporter
Daniel Pearl, who has called Al-Jazeera "today's
greatest recruiter for terrorism." His son's murderer,
9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is now in
Guantanamo but has been scheduled by the Obama
Administration for a civilian trial in the U.S.,
boasted of his murder, saying that he "decapitated with
my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew,
Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi, Pakistan. For
those who would like to confirm, there are pictures of
me on the Internet holding his head."

CRTC commissioner Marc Patrone said in the lone
dissenting opinion that the decision to permit
broadcasting AJE was made without adequately addressing
concerns that the channel could engage in spreading
"ethnic and religious hatred." He also expressed
concern about the foreign ownership of the channel. "In
weighing the merits of all foreign services, the
regulator should be particularly sensitive to
'state-owned' or 'state-financed' services originating
from nations with radically different attitudes towards
freedom of speech and democracy in general," he said.
See No Evil

A group called Canadian Journalists for Free Expression
(CJFE) welcomed the decision to allow AJE into the
country but said nothing in its statement about the
fact that the channel is funded by the oil-rich Sunni
Muslim monarchy in Qatar and that there is no freedom
of the press in Qatar itself.

The U.S. State Department says about Qatar: "The
constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the
press in accordance with the law, but the government
limited these rights in practice. Journalists and
publishers continued to self-censor due to political
and economic pressures when reporting on government
policies, material deemed hostile to Islam, the ruling
family, and relations with neighboring states. There
were reports that security authorities threatened both
individuals and organizations against publishing
certain articles."

What's more, it goes on, "Citizens lacked the right to
change the leadership of their government by direct
ballot. There were prolonged detentions in overcrowded
and harsh facilities, often ending in deportation. The
government placed varying restrictions on civil
liberties, including freedoms of speech, press
(including the Internet), assembly, association, and
religion."

Commissioner Patrone noted that the CRTC had provided a
"stark appraisal" of the record of Al-Jazeera Arabic
(AJA) in 2004 when approving its license for the
Canadian media market only if the content were recorded
and monitored by cable and satellite carriers. No
distributors picked up the channel because of those
restrictions, which have not been applied by the CRTC
in the case of AJE. This means the channel may find it
easier to get in more media markets.

But Patrone said that because of the treatment of AJA,
"one might have expected this most recent application
by the same network's English-language service would
have been subject to the most rigorous examination
possible-one which included a reconsideration of the
entire network's journalism policies. Regretfully, this
hasn't been the case."

"While some of the interveners argued that the
Commission should consider AJA's broadcasting record,
my colleagues, consistent with the Commission's usual
approach, chose not to do so," Patrone explained. "The
consequence of this decision, in my opinion, is that it
did not allow for the kind of comprehensive
investigation of Al Jazeera's entire record that I
believe was warranted."

Patrone added that one of the interveners, a group
called Honest Reporting Canada, had submitted
documentary evidence to the commission noting that some
reporting of AJE, despite its claims to be objective,
has been unbalanced, unfair, and inaccurate. It cited
specific instances of such reporting.

Honest Reporting Canada said, "We are apprehensive that
AJE will be unabashedly anti-Israel, journalistically
unfair, inaccurate and unbalanced, and may potentially
carry content which exposes Jews to hatred and
anti-Semitism. We have relayed our concerns to the CRTC
and to the Canadian sponsor of AJE, Ethnic Channels
Group Ltd."

Cut From the Same Cloth

Patrone noted that Ethnic Channels Group Ltd (ECGL)
claimed that AJE and AJA "were distinct services and
submitted that it would be inappropriate to consider
AJA's broadcast record in order to assess the request
to add AJE to the list, even if they share a common
owner." The CRTC seemed to accept this dubious
assertion.

In fact, an AIM special report found evidence that key
Al-Jazeera English personnel had come from Al-Jazeera
Arabic. The emir of Qatar, Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani,
is chairman of the boards of directors for both
channels.

In the U.S., largely because of efforts by Accuracy in
Media to expose the channel's links to terrorists and
funding by an undemocratic regime, AJE has had limited
distribution and acceptance. However, it has spent
countless oil dollars of the emir on expensive public
relations firms in order to obtain more outlets. AJE is
now being carried in the Washington, D.C. area through
the MHz Networks.

While not arguing for any federal action to keep the
channel out of the United States, AIM has told
potential cable and satellite carriers that it offers
anti-American programming designed to incite Arabs and
Muslims to hate and kill Americans and Jews. AIM
produced a documentary, Terror Television: The Rise of
Al-Jazeera and the Hate America Media, featuring
evidence that Al-Jazeera inspired foreign Muslim
fighters to go to places like Iraq and Afghanistan for
the specific purpose of killing U.S. service members.

AIM demonstrated, through a videotape captured after
the liberation of Iraq by U.S. forces, that
Al-Jazeera's first managing director was an agent of
the Saddam Hussein regime. In addition, one of
Al-Jazeera's Afghanistan reporters, Tayseer Alouni,
went to prison in Spain on terrorism charges.
Al-Jazeera paid Alouni's salary, legal fees and
"related expenses" during his trial and continues to
defend him.

American Journalist Bails Out

Our charges of bias were vindicated when the top U.S.
journalist at Al-Jazeera English, Dave Marash, left the
channel and said that anti-American bias was a factor
in his decision to leave. Prior to the channel's launch
in 2006, Marash had claimed that Al-Jazeera English
would be editorially autonomous and independent from
Al-Jazeera Arabic. Marash told the Columbia Journalism
Review that Al-Jazeera officials in Doha, Qatar, had
wanted to do a series on "Poverty in America" that was
"so stereotypical and shallow" that AJE in Washington,
D.C. rejected the idea. "And so the planning desk in
Doha literally sneaked a production team into the
United States without letting anyone in the American
news desk know," he said. The result, he said, was just
as he predicted-a shallow and stereotypical story.

The CRTC had received a request on February 27, 2009
from Ethnic Channels Group Limited for the addition of
AJE to the Canadian distribution list. The ECGL had
stated that AJE's Code of Ethics included "journalistic
values of honesty, fairness, balance, independence and
credibility" and "was taken very seriously by AJE's
reporters and management."

This is laughable, of course. As AIM disclosed during
the U.S. presidential campaign, Al-Jazeera aired a
Moammar Gadhafi speech praising then-candidate Barack
Obama and followed with a story depicting supporters of
GOP vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin as white
racist Christians. The Al-Jazeera "reporter" who did
the hit piece on Palin was Casey Kaufmann, who surfaced
in Federal Election Commission (FEC) records as a $500
contributor to the Obama-for-president campaign.

In terms of "ethics," Judea Pearl has described how
Al-Jazeera not only covered but helped sponsor the
August 2008 birthday of Samir Kuntar, a released
terrorist who had smashed the head of a four-year-old
girl with his rifle butt in 1979 after killing her
father before her eyes. Kuntar had been released by
Israel in exchange for the bodies of two Israeli
soldiers, who were kidnapped by Hezbollah in 2006.

"Al-Jazeera elevated Kuntar to heroic heights with
orchestras, fireworks and sword dances, presenting him
to 50 million viewers as Arab society's role model,"
Pearl noted in a Wall Street Journal column. "No
mainstream Western media outlet dared to expose
Al-Jazeera efforts to warp its young viewers into the
likes of Kuntar. Al-Jazeera's management continues to
receive royal treatment in all major press clubs."

>From CNN to Al-Jazeera

"I have to explain to people that I'm not the voice of
Osama [bin Laden]," AJE correspondent Rizwan "Riz" Khan
defensively told a National Press Club International
Correspondents Committee event on March 9, 2007. Khan,
who worked for the BBC and CNN before going to AJE,
also wrote the book, Alwaleed, an official biography
about the billionaire Saudi prince who has become a
major investor in News Corporation, the parent company
of the Fox News Channel.

Bin Laden's continuing use of Al-Jazeera as a
mouthpiece for al Qaeda came on January 24, when the
channel broadcast the terrorist's latest audio tape.
"Ever since the 9/11 attacks in 2001, Al Jazeera has
been the network al-Qaeda has often chosen to deliver
its messages to. For al-Qaeda, the channel's reach in
the Arab and Muslim world, as well as its global
audience, is key," acknowledged the report on AJE. It
said that Ahmed Al Sheikh, editor-in-chief of
Al-Jazeera Arabic, had confirmed the tape was bin
Laden's voice.

Bin Laden took responsibility in the tape for the
attempted Christmas Day bombing attack on the U.S.

The AJE aired the views of various people who claimed
that airing the tape didn't mean that Al-Jazeera was in
any way sympathetic to the terrorist group. One talking
head even claimed that while airing the tape meant that
the channel had exclusive "access" to al Qaeda, this
gave Al-Jazeera increased "credibility."

Five days later, on January 29, Al-Jazeera aired
another bin Laden tape blasting the U.S. for
contributing to climate change.

Bin Laden Quotes Leftist

In the recording, according to Al-Jazeera, bin Laden
also stated that "Noam Chomsky was correct when he
compared the US policies to those of the Mafia. They
are the true terrorists and therefore we should refrain
from dealing in the US dollar and should try to get rid
of this currency as early as possible." Al-Jazeera
identified Chomsky as "the US academic and political
commentator" when, in fact, the professor is a member
of the board of the Committees of Correspondence for
Democracy and Socialism, a Communist Party spin-off
group, and well-known for his anti-American and
anti-Israel views. On another occasion, Noam Chomsky
was identified by Al-Jazeera as "the renowned US
academic, author and political activist" and appeared
on a show on the channel called "Inside USA." He had
previously appeared on Riz Khan's program.

(please note: Noam's statements are based on innuendos
and baseless facts as he never sites a source for his
information)   

Al-Jazeera Arabic on February 7 aired an interview with
the U.S.-born Yemen-based "religious scholar" Anwar
al-Awlaki, who is actually an al-Qaeda propagandist and
recruiter and has been accused of being linked to the
murderous attack at Fort Hood and the Christmas Day
attempted bombing. "I have said in an earlier interview
with Al Jazeera's Yusri Fouda that the United States is
a tyrant, and tyrants across history have all had
terrible ends," he said. "I believe the West does not
want to realize this universal fact. Muslims in Europe
and America are watching what is happening to Muslims
in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan, and they will take
revenge for all Muslims across the globe."

Why Not Al-Jazeera?

The U.S. House of Representatives in December passed a
resolution (H.R. 2278) by a vote of 395-3 to "direct
the President to transmit to Congress a report on
anti-American incitement to violence in the Middle
East..." It was sent after passage to Senator John
Kerry's Senate Foreign Relations Committee for further
action.

The resolution declared that "The broadcast of
incitement to violence against Americans and the United
States on television channels and other media that are
accessible in the United States may increase the risk
of radicalization and recruitment of Americans into
Foreign Terrorist Organizations that seek to carry out
acts of violence against American targets and on
American soil."

The sponsor, Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla.), said passage
was a blow to "terror TV" and that the report from
President Obama "must include a country-by-country list
and description of media outlets that engage in
anti-American incitement to violence in the Middle East
and a list of satellite companies that carry such
media."

However, Al-Jazeera was not named in the text of H.R.
2278 while other television networks associated with
Hezbollah and Hamas were.

Yet the legislation defines "anti-American incitement
to violence" as "the act of persuading, encouraging,
instigating, advocating, pressuring, or threatening so
as to cause another to commit a violent act against any
person, agent, instrumentality, or official of, is
affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of
the United States."

It will be difficult for officials of the Obama
Administration to argue that the definition does not
apply to at least some of the programming from its
"friends" at Al-Jazeera.

Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and
can be contacted at


===  LEFTY PROFESSORS ARE DANGEROUS!! ===


Send them to the Gulag!!


Liberal tendencies explored

By Timothy Sandoval -- Published: Wednesday, February
10, 2010

A recent study proposed a new theory that may explain
why professors tend to be liberal.

Authors of the study, “Why are Professors
Liberal,” theorized that the occupation of
professor has become politically typecast. According to
the study, liberals are more likely to become
professors because the position is perceived as a
liberal occupation.

“Professors are wrapped up with the identity of
liberalism,” said Ethan Fosse, a PhD candidate at
Harvard and author of the study. “It’s very
difficult to separate being a professor with being
liberal.”

Typecasting occupations is common in many fields, Fosse
said.

Evidence from other studies indicate that occupations
such as nurses and elementary school teachers are
typecast, but typecast toward gender.

“People sort themselves into certain occupations,
in part, based on their identity,” Fosse said.
“They think: ‘this is the kind of person I
want to be.’”

The study by Fosse and Neil Gross, associate professor
of sociology at the University at British Columbia, is
the first of its kind that questions professorial
liberalism. Studies in the past have usually been
tainted by political bias and the use of anecdotes or
hearsay, Fosse said.

The study finds that many factors contribute to
professors being more liberal than the rest of the
population besides typecasting. Factors such as higher
degree attainment; the disparity between their level of
income and education; identification as Jewish,
non-religious, or non-fundamentalist Protestant; and
professors expressing greater tolerance for
controversial ideas, all contribute to professors being
liberal.

Ernest Cowles, director and professor of sociology at
Sacramento State, said he thought the theory was
interesting and probably true.

“If it happens I don’t think it’s
deliberate or intentional,” Cowles said. “I
think it’s based on the characteristics of people
and how those are packaged together.”

Noam Chomsky, M.I.T. linguistics professor and
political activist, said he disagrees with the
description of professors as liberal.

“True, professors tend to be liberal on social
issues and civil rights, rather like CEOs,”
Chomsky said. “But they tend to be strong
supporters of state violence and repression, again like
CEOs.”

Fosse said he disagreed with Chomsky.

“Based on our studies and others, compared to the
rest of the population, professors are more liberal on
just about everything you can imagine,” Fosse
said.

Lee Doren, a liberty activist for the Competitive
Enterprise Institute, said he believed the
author’s theory, though valid, is incomplete.

Doren, who recently gave a lecture titled
“Avoiding Liberal Indoctrination in
College,” said that inherent in intellectualism
is the idea that intelligent people should make
decisions for non-intellectuals.

Fosse said he had not encountered any evidence that
this was true.

“If anything, I suspect (professors) think
knowledge and science should guide social
policy,” Fosse said.

The study also shows that there are differences in
political ideology among disciplines. According to the
study, professors in economics, engineering and
business tend to be more conservative than professors
in other disciplines.

This happens because conservatives and liberals often
have much different motivations. Liberals are often
more interested in jobs that are meaningful and serve
others, while conservatives are more interested in
wages and prestige in their jobs, according to the
study.

In his lecture, Doren said all of America’s
public schools, not just universities, were
“leftists indoctrination camps.”

Cowles said he believes professors probably do carry
their political views into their classrooms, but said
he believes most professors will make clear their
opinion from what is fact.

Timothy Sandoval can be reached at
tsandoval@statehornet.com




==================

Here is a neo-fascist reight-wing corporate whore who
attempts to smear THE LEFT.

Of course, wholesale ignoring the putrid machinations
of the 9/11 inside job and the CIA's + Banker's many
crimes against the progressives around our world.

Still, it is worth a read, as some lefties were indeed
fascinated with Hitler. But there were jews who
collaborated with Hitler, and the fathers of the state
of israel have  supported Germany's Nazi movement
because the English were their enemy...

=== Intellectuals and Society

Posted by Robert Wargas on Feb 12th, 2010

In 1980, during a debate for Milton Friedman's Free to
Choose series, Frances Fox Piven, of Cloward-Piven
infamy, tried to lecture Thomas Sowell on race and
economics. Her contention was that equality of
opportunity had failed and what black people needed was
a strong dose of socialism. "That's why equality of
results became an issue -- for black people in the
United States," she said, "and they expressed their
concern -- ."

"No, you expressed it, damn it!" Sowell shot back.
"It's what you choose to put in the mouths of black
people."

The moral of the story is that Thomas Sowell does not
put much faith in Ph.D. degrees. Three decades later,
at age seventy-nine, he once again pounces on armchair
theorists and assorted ivory-tower types in his newest
book, Intellectuals and Society. Sowell identifies his
targets as "people whose occupations deal primarily
with ideas." In other words, ideas are the finished
products of their labor. This category could include
writers, philosophers, and the literature professor who
thinks Hamlet is about a young man struggling with the
horrors of capitalist society.

These intellectuals are different from others not only
because of their interests, but because of their method
of operation and the incentive structure that comes
with it. Unlike carpenters, who produce tangible goods,
or scientists, who produce theories that must be tested
against results, the dealer in pure ideas is cut off
from the normal feedback mechanisms that filter faulty
notions out of the intellectual landscape. An auto
mechanic who can't fix transmissions is bound to go out
of business, just as a civil engineer who designs a
bridge that collapses is apt to suffer some problems
with his career.

Not so with intellectuals. "Not only have intellectuals
been insulated from material consequences, they have
often enjoyed immunity from even a loss of reputation
after having been demonstrably wrong." Their insularity
can also lead to dilettantism, as the intellectual is
not constrained from wandering into fields completely
outside his or her own. The pattern is clear: Chomsky
the linguist becomes Chomsky the foreign-policy wonk.
Michael Eric Dyson the minister becomes the expert on
everything racial. Your anthropology professor becomes
an expert on healthcare economics.

Though his main topic is focused, Sowell's context is
wide. He discusses economics, war, the law, the media,
politics, and race. For decades, these subjects have
been the canvases on which intellectuals have painted
their grotesque portraits. Sowell documents not only
the disastrous ideas themselves -- straight out of the
mouths of characters like John Dewey -- but discusses
why those ideas have failed so miserably.

Sowell is one of the greatest debunkers of our time,
capable of laying waste to vast fields of demagoguery
through slash-and-burn logic and empiricism. No one
throws the wrench in the leftist chain quite like him.
The most devastating chapter of the book is the one
entitled "Intellectuals and Economics," in which Sowell
obliterates common claims about "income distribution,"
poverty, and inequality. His bête noire is the person
for whom evidence is merely optional filigree. (Who
needs evidence when one is flying under the banner of
"social justice"?) Bromides about the "widening gap"
between rich and poor don't consider that individuals
are constantly moving between income brackets, as
Sowell illustrates. Looking merely at statistical
abstractions creates the illusion that "the rich" and
"the poor" are merely static, immutable categories,
rather than mere classifications through which many
different people are constantly passing.

Intellectuals' perverse desire to see some sort of
"plan" imposed on society has made for a decidedly
sordid history of their ilk. The Progressives of the
early twentieth century, for instance, were bona fide
racists, and the academic extension of their ideas was
the eugenics movement. It comes as no surprise, then,
that the revolutionary creeds of Italian Fascism and
German National Socialism were especially intriguing to
the intelligentsia, despite their being mislabeled
today as "conservative" or "right wing" movements.
Sowell reminds us that these ideologies were originally
considered left wing by the intellectuals themselves.
Lincoln Steffens, who glorified Soviet Communism, also
reserved praise for Mussolini. Other radical socialists
who shared his sentiments included British novelist
H.G. Wells and American historian Charles Beard.

Still more saw the ultimate promise of collectivism in
the Nazi movement. During the 1920s, W.E.B. Du Bois,
prominent black historical figure and devoted
communist, became so fascinated with Nazism that he
decorated the magazine he edited with swastikas. This
love affair was not a one-night stand, either. As late
as 1936, Du Bois remarked that "Germany today is, next
to Russia, the greatest exemplar of Marxian socialism
in the world."

The ease with which intellectuals migrate from one
squalid "ism" to another has necessitated some
revisionism on their part. It was only after the West
fully realized the horrors of the Italian and German
dictatorships that the intellectual Left disowned them
in a massive act of historical face-saving. Writes
Sowell: "The heterogeneity of those later lumped
together as the right has allowed those on the left to
dump into that grab-bag category many who espouse some
version of the vision of the left, but whose other
characteristics make them an embarrassment to be
repudiated."

If there's any weakness with the book, it's that Sowell
is himself an intellectual, making it easy for
left-wing bloggers to dismiss him even if they can't
refute the book's arguments. There are differences,
however, between this book and the putrid machinations
of a Noam Chomsky or a Cornel West: Those intellectuals
are so sure of their ideas they have no doubt they'd
make the perfect blueprint for society. Sowell, on the
contrary, has never advocated anything except leaving
people alone. Also, part of intellectuals' decidedly
anti-intellectual strategy, as Sowell points out, is
their inoculation against empirical evidence. That
socialism killed millions in the twentieth century, and
that quasi-socialist policies have wiped out inner
cities in America, makes no difference to the tenured
cultural studies professor.

Sowell, then, while being an intellectual according to
his own definition, is in practice far more scientific
and accountable. His awareness of human fallibility is
straight out of Burke or Hayek. The absence of this
quality in radicals is what makes today's intellectual
climate so uninviting. Sowell writes: "Because the
vision of the anointed is a vision of themselves as
well as a vision of the world, when they are defending
that vision they are not simply defending a set of
hypotheses about external events, they are in a sense
defending their very souls -- and the zeal and even
ruthlessness with which they defend their vision are
not surprising under these circumstances."

Robert Wargas is a writer and graduate student who
lives on Long Island, NY.

== comments worth reading ===

Dr. Sowell and Mr. Wargas are masters at babble-speak.
Try arguing against any of the multitude of facts
contained in several (take your pick) of Prof.
Chomsky's books on US foreign policy. No, you better
stick to bogus generalizations and lofty ad hominem
attacks, and continue to hope your readers are either
too busy, uninterested or plain intellectually lazy to
figure out the truth.

====

corporatism and outright fascism  killed millions in
the twentieth century - Fascism 2.0 (Bush, US
corporations, US military, banks) continues to kill
those who are endangering the mind-cartels of the US
media doctrines.

=====

Karim says:

February 12, 2010 at 11:09 pm No, but you dont mind if
they steal your tax dollars and give them to
banks,waste your childrens future by declaring illegal
and destructive wars,shred your constitution,spy on
you,legalize torture ecs.But ofcourse you are not
ruled.Never.You are Americans.You are free.What a joke.


Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at Saturday, February 13, 2010

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites