Bankrupting America

Bankrupting America

The American Century Dictionary defines Bankrupt as “Legally declared insolvent.” Insolvent is defined as “Unable to pay one’s debts.”

The majority of Democrats, and a surprising number of Republicans, believe that the Obama Administration is on the right course to save the nation’s financial system. The same Democrats that screamed bloody-murder over George W. Bush’s spending habits, spending sprees that I also was in grave disagreement with, are now proclaiming that not only will President Barack Obama’s massive budget proposal not bankrupt the country, but that deficit spending into the trillions of dollars is what is necessary to save us from a looming sequel of The Great Depression.

Republican House Representative John A. Boehner, the House minority leader, said recently in defense of his idea to freeze government spending that, “We simply cannot afford to mortgage our children and grandchildren’s future to pay for this big government spending spree.”

Imagine, if you will, and I will use myself as a hypothetical example, that I had hit some hard times. Investments were going sour, logging and construction downturns placed a burden on my financial well-being, and my wife and I were no longer able to go out to fine places to eat, or attend entertainment venues that we would normally frequent. Cooking at home takes work, after all, and tightening our belts and curbing our spending habits would take away from our ability to participate in a lifestyle we have been enjoying for years.

So, one night I sit down with my wife and say, “You know, the way to help our economic situation is to create in influx of cash so that we can get things moving again. That way, with all of that extra cash, we can go out and buy the things we feel we need to buy, and not have to spend so much time worried about trying to juggle the bills.”

She decides to agree in this world of fantasy, and so we max out our credit cards and get more of those little plastic devils so that we can use them for whatever we desire. After all, we need to fix the infrastructure of our lives by buying new cars, adding on to the house, building an additional structure on our property on the Oregon Coast, and pulling out our driveway and replacing it with new concrete – oh, heck, its free money, we might as well lay interlocking bricks. That way, it is more appealing to guest that visit too.

Eventually, the credit cards become too much for us to manage. But, hey, no problem, the 80 acre place in Oregon is paid off, and even with the slow down in real estate it is worth more than one can shake a stick at, so we can just borrow against the property. We’ll set up an account that allows us to write checks, that way the equity is fully available, and always at our fingertips.

During the time period of all this money flowing in we go out, buy new cars, and live it up. Those around us proclaim, “Gosh, even with the economic difficulties this nation is facing, the Gibbs’ family is doing well. I wonder how they do it?”

What is that you say? Eventually I will have to pay back all of that money I created by financing myself up to my eyeballs? No problem, the creditors will stay off my back just long enough for me to die of old age, and then my kids can worry about it. No worry. They’ll figure something out.

Obviously, the high deficit world I created in the above scenario would be a foolish way to run my household. As a business owner, trying to fix an ailing business by going into deeper debt would be foolish as well. So I ask this: If it is the wrong thing to go deeper into debt to create an influx of funds, and if it is wrong to just leave the worries of it to my children and grandchildren, as an individual or business owner, then why would it be the right thing to for the United States Government?

Historically, raising taxes and increasing government spending creates more harm than it helps. Lyndon B. Johnson and Jimmy Carter are great examples of that. And don’t give me this “Obama is cutting taxes” bull, either. Taxes are being raised in ways that we don’t even recognize them as such. Fees and licenses and fines for regulatory disobedience are all taxes, in my book. Even the simple little Business License is a city business tax, even though the word tax is not present. While quacking like a duck, even though the animal has a name tag that says hyena, does not make a duck suddenly a hyena. Eventually, the Democrat’s spending, led by Barack Obama, is going to get so massive, and it is already beyond the abilities of the top 5% to shoulder the full burden, that Obama will tax as Democrats always tax – massively along all points of the economic spectrum. Uh, that means you, too. You will all feel the pain of an Obama Administration frantically trying to gather more funds after everything begins to collapse further.

Early during the last century a recession loomed on the horizon, and Presidents Harding and Coolidge were fiscal conservatives that adhered strictly to the U.S. Constitution. As the economic times were becoming more difficult, as they are now, Harding, and then Coolidge later, cut federal spending and cut taxes. As a result, people were able to do more with more, and their incomes rose, increasing revenue while stimulating the economy. The boom years of the 1920’s followed.

President Hoover, a fitting predecessor to the socialist stylings of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was not anything like his fellow fiscally conservative Republicans. Hoover, as Roosevelt would later, piled up big deficits to support huge public-works projects. Federal spending soared during the final years of the roaring 20’s and into the early 1930’s. In fact, federal spending increased by more than 50%, the largest increase in federal spending ever recorded during peacetime.

Public projects Hoover decided to undertake included the San Francisco Bay Bridge, the Los Angeles Aqueduct, and the Hoover Dam. Yes, I know these are wonderful projects that we benefit from to this day, and the world is a better place with them, but was this the best thing to do as the nation was entering into The Great Depression? Sure, Hoover became very popular with the labor forces that participated in the projects who were convinced by government to refrain from cutting wages as the economy fell. But was it government’s responsibility to correct the market? Or was it the fault of central planning, protectionism (like the Smoot-Hawley tariff), and central banks like the Federal Reserve System controlling the economy (that became known as the New Deal later) that caused the economic upheaval, and extended it well into the 1940s?

Like with the Obama Administration, where the market seems on the surface to have failed, the government stepped in to protect the common citizen, increasing spending to do so, therefore creating debt – and in Obama’s case, writing checks on money that doesn’t even exist, and in turn devaluing the dollar.

I know that the Liberal anti-truth machine is even now rewriting history, proclaiming that Hoover, contrary to popular opinion and factual historical text, was actually trying to balance the budget by cutting spending, and it was those actions that caused The Great Depression. Robert H. Frank of the New York Times even goes so far to “lie,” I mean “say,” that Hoover not only actually cut spending, but that there is a consensus out there among economists that cutting spending is a huge mistake.

Do you hear that? Balancing the budget, cutting spending, and essentially being responsible with the American Citizen’s tax money is a bad thing? Putting less on the credit cards will harm us? Mortgaging America into bankruptcy so that our children and grandchildren in their lifetimes could never pay it back in full is the right thing to do to stimulate the economy? Are they insane?

Owing more than you have coming in, in other words, deficit spending, is a one way ticket to bankruptcy. It was wrong when George W. Bush did it, and it is wrong now. The Free Market is self-correcting. The people know best, not the government. The size of government has been steadily increasing over the last twenty years under the very moderate Bush Family, Bill Clinton, and now Obama (with a short spurt of a balanced budget that created a surplus that was engineered by the House Republicans led by Newt Gingrich during the nineties, of which The Left loves to give the credit to Bill Clinton on). If an increase in the size of government is such a good thing, and if deficit spending is what helps the economy grow, then tell me: After all of these years of deficit spending and a constant expansion of the federal government, why is it that we are in this financial mess? Could it possibly be that the seems of our economy are busting loose because of government intervention in the Free Market? Could it possibly be that the Free Market is trying to adjust after a decades of artificial manipulation by the United States Government? And since when is ever financing ourselves into oblivion a reasonable thing to do?

The Obama Administration, and the village idiots that populate the U.S. Congress, are bankrupting us. And what is most concerting about it is that a large segment of the U.S. population is actually greeting this destruction of the American financial system with thunderous applause, and mindless approval. Our founding fathers, President Harding, and President Coolidge would be disappointed. We have truly lost our way, and the Pied Pipers of Washington are leading us to a cliff. It is essential that we turn this around with fiscal conservatism, or else in the end, like the rats in the river, we will be drowning as a result of our own stupidity.

Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Five Myths About the Great Depression by Andrew B. Wilson

When ‘Deficit’ Isn’t a Dirty Word by Robert H. Frank

Advertisements

Muslim and Israeli Reaction of Obama Election per Walid Shoebat, Fairness Doctrine per Kenneth Hill, Obama Birth Certificate per U.S. Constitution

Obama Presidency in the Eyes of the Muslims, and Israel; The Coming Fairness Doctrine


Tonight on Political Pistachio Radio after Founding Truth at 7pm Pacific/10pm Eastern: Walid Shoebat, former Palestinian Terrorist, joins us to explain why Muslims are happy about the Obama win, and why Israel is worried. Will we see vitriolic anti-Semitism in America?

And, also tonight, in the second hour of the show: Is the Fairness Doctrine coming? Will we see the sudden rise of an Orwellian America? Truth Squads? Thought Police? Political Censorship? Dr. Kenneth Hill will explain the real threats on the horizon, and how the Fairness Doctrine will open the door for all of them!

Catch it all tonight on the Political Pistachio Revolution – Conservative Commentary

Founding Truth Examines The Constitutional Questions Surrounding the Obama Birth Certificate Debate


Last Sunday on Political Pistachio Radio an explosive episode that has attracted thousands of listeners regarding Obama’s Birth Certificate aired. During that episode, a number of Constitutional questions arose from the relationship of the 14th amendment with Article 2 to who becomes president should Barack Obama be found to be ineligible.

Philip J. Berg’s case is heading to the Supreme Court, and the Obama Camp claims they have a Constitutional argument out of it. Do they? Did the 14th amendment change the meaning of Article 2? If Obama is in fact ineligible, who becomes president? Will there be a special election? What if the decision comes down before January 20th? What if the decision comes down after January 20th?

Tune in to Founding Truth tonight at 5pm Pacific/8pm Eastern to find out!

After the episode you may also go to Blog Talk Radio for the archive of the show.

It’s About Conservative Principles, Stupid!

It’s About Conservative Principles, Stupid!


Human Nature dictates that it is more comfortable to be in a crisis and blame others, than to be in a comfort zone and look inward. People tend to not like to look at themselves. It is much easier to ignore the decisions one has made in their life, and blame others for their predicament instead.

I have accused the Liberal Left many times of ignoring human nature, and that is exactly what they do. However, human desire is hardly ignored by The Left. During this last election, the human desire for any change during a crisis, whether that crisis is real or not, was not ignored at all. During the Obama Campaign, the Democrats were banking on Human Desire to takes its course, and elect the next president on emotional impulse, rather than principles that best serves this nation.

Obama’s Health Care plan took advantage of the human desire to have access to health care, no matter what the cost. However, Obama’s Health Care Plan ignores human nature when it comes to the human tendency to take advantage (to the point of over doing it) of what seems to be a freebie, even if it is not from a taxation point of view. Barack Obama proclaims that his Universal-style government health plan is completely voluntary. If you have good health insurance, you can keep it. His plan only supplies government paid (taxpayer paid) health care to those who can’t afford such plans (mostly illegal aliens). But, as his alleged birth state of Hawaii has proven, such a plan is doomed to fail.

Why did Hawaii’s health plan, similar to Obama’s in all ways except that it specifically targeted children, fail? Because those who already had health care plans dropped them for the government freebie, which in turn bankrupted the government plan, and after seven months Hawaii had to kill it and proclaim the plan to be a failure. Oh, the idea had a noble ring to it: “Hawaii lawmakers approved the health plan in 2007 as a way to ensure every child can get basic medical help. The Keiki (child) Care program aimed to cover every child from birth to 18 years old who didn’t already have health insurance — mostly immigrants and members of lower-income families.”

Sound familiar?

But hey, like with all of his other socialist ideas, Obama’s attitude is that failed policies need not fail with his messiah-like touch involved. Obamaism will succeed because he will make it so.

And Obama said, “Let there be utopia, and there was.”

As stated earlier, Obama and the rest of the liberals, do not take into account human nature when it comes to their programs – that is why their neo-socialism/neo-Marxism is doomed to fail, and by the end of the Obama presidency America will be begging for “Change.”

The Democrats, however much they ignore human nature when it comes to governing, definitely recognized the potential of human desire when it came to campaigning.

“Crisis” is an important component to bring about change, and change – any change – can be instituted once humans believe they are caught up in a teeth gnashing crisis.

Knowing this, the Democrats created crisis when they launched their “hate Bush” campaign five years ago, and hammered away at it until they believed that most Americans felt that George W. Bush is the worst president this country has ever seen. Of course, like with any leader, I do not agree with many things Dubya has enacted, but having disagreements with a politician doesn’t automatically make him the “worst ever” as a result. If that was the case, every president that has ever been elected (and one that wasn’t) has been the worst ever. Heck, I even disagreed with Ronald Reagan a couple times!

Unfortunately, the Republican Leadership got sucked into the “crisis hysteria” as well, and began to believe there must be something wrong with the Republican Brand under the constant deluge of attacks, and often lies, from the Liberal Left Democrats. As a result, the GOP decided it would be prudent to move leftward and become a party of moderates (but sometimes call it conservatism hoping that some of the base may actually believe them).

The Republican Party, in that sense, began to think like the Democrats, and placed Party (and winning the next election) over and above their principles.

Conservatism isn’t about power, control, big government, or any of the other things that seems to define today’s liberalism or moderate Repubicans. Conservative Principles are about down-sizing the size of the federal government, practicing fiscal responsibility, supporting family values, providing a strong defense, encouraging individual rights and responsibility, keeping taxes and government spending down, and adhering to the United States Constitution.

How can the Republican Party proclaim to be a party of conservatives when government spending has skyrocketed under the control of a Republican President (that convinced many that he’s a Conservative), earmarks by Congress just as rampant among the GOP as it is with the Democrats, and a national border left wide open during a time that providing a strong defense has become crucial? How can the Republicans claim to support family values when scandals like Senator Larry Craig’s Bathroom Stall antics crop up, or politicians with an “R” after their name, like California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, say things like “The fight for gay marriage is not over in California?”

The image above at the top of this article is the 2008 Election Map by counties. Looks like a Republican landslide, doesn’t it? Fact is, the population centers elected Barack Obama for president, while the Conservatives of this nation stayed home and let it happen. As for the other voters, the Democrats saw that their “Bring the troops home from Iraq” plan was losing, and were able to make the economy the number one issue going into the election – and then turned Obama into a tax cutting conservative to win!

It turns out that people did not flock to the voting booths in record numbers as the mainstream media had expected, and by percentage the voter turnout was virtually the same as 2004. However, African-American and Hispanic Voter turnout was up, while White voter turnout was down. Registered Democrats voter turnout increased by 2.6 points from 28.7 percent in 2004 to 31.3 percent in 2008 while Republican turnout declined by 1.3 percentage points to 28.7 percent.

In short, Republicans stayed home while non-Republicans flocked to their voting locations.

The question, then, is why?

The Republican Party erroneously put the party first. Winning the election became more important than sticking to Conservative Principles. A moderate, well known to buck the GOP and leap across the aisle to hang out with Democrats, was the Republican offering. The GOP has become more and more convinced that moving left will win elections for the party, rather than sticking to “believing is something.” Therefore, the GOP is being seen by the voters as being a party that essentially stands for nothing. Many conservatives stayed home to punish the Republicans. Now, among the moderates, I am hearing rumblings of how they can brand the Republican Party to appeal to the younger crowd, and the minorities – – – that they must move further to the left in order to win the next election!

In a word, the Republican Party Leadership is now populated by idiots. You don’t abandon your principles to gain a handful of votes from voters that have no principles of their own, or maintain leftist leanings. You stick to your principles, you proclaim your principles, and you explain how your conservative principles are good for all Americans. Then, when people understand that Conservatism is not the lies the left puts out, but the idea that not only should one group not be punished for being successful, but that all people should be encouraged to reach such success in this nation of opportunity, people will vote for the party because they wish to vote for the principles the party stands for.

The Republican Party lost this election because it turned its back on Conservative Principles, and allowed the Democrats to proclaim “crisis” successfully, and herd the people in the direction of Socialism. The Republican Leadership believes the lies put out by the left, and reacts to the ridiculous accusations put out by the left, and like cowards abandoned their Conservative Principles under the pressure.

If abandoning Conservative Principles is the recipe for success in elections, then show me the overwhelming success of moderates across the nation?

The two most popular governors in America, at this moment, are Republicans that cling to their Conservative Principles, Sarah Palin of Alaska and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. The last landslide election win by Republicans for President was Ronald Reagan in 1984 – a campaign run on strict Conservative Principles.

America is the greatest nation on this earth, not the nation to blame for the world’s ills as the Democrats paint it out to be. Fiscal Conservatism, as it did in the 80’s, can lead us back to economic prosperity. Peace can be maintained in the world with a strong American Military that sends fear down the spines of every dictator and madman abroad. Our moral compass can be righted again with legislation that protects the unborn, protects marriage, and continues to encourage families to be the backbone of this nation. But this can only be achieved if the Republican Party returns to its base. Politics should not be about winning elections and gaining or holding power. It’s about Conservative Principles, and sticking to what is right. It is about doing what is best for this nation. It is about standing up for the American Way.

————

For News on the Tea Fire in California GO HERE.

Published in: on November 15, 2008 at 5:18 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , , ,

empty promises . . .

Empty Promises


The Obama Presidency proves that experience means nothing (or at least if you are a Democrat). All one must do to become president is stir emotions, and make a bunch of empty promises that can never possibly be fulfilled.

Talking to Obama supporters, it seems like to them Barack is some magical creature that, once in office, will merely speak the word, and all will be solved. I wonder how they will react when that doesn’t happen?

George Herbert Walker Bush lost his re-election bid because he had lied to the American people about “No New Taxes.” The Republicans lost this election partly because many Americans believe (erroneously, of course) that “Bush Lied” when it came to the War in Iraq, the economy, etc. etc. etc.

Will Obama’s feet be held to the fire when it turns out that he lied during his campaign and could not possibly fulfill all of the magical goodies he promised?

Or will Obama’s feet be held to the fire when he “does” implement some of what he promised, and it fails miserably, and increases the National Debt exorbitantly?

Will his feet be held to the fire when the fears of conservatives come true, and Obama raises taxes across the board, and begins to socialize this nation piece by piece?

I wonder. . .

Published in: on November 14, 2008 at 4:18 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags:

Barack Hussein Obama and the Logan Act

Barack Obama and His Merry Band of Felons, Violating The Logan Act

The Logan Act is a Federal Law forbidding American citizens not authorized by the President to correspond or meet with foreign governments with the intent of influencing conduct. Violation of the act, which passed in 1799, is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.

There have been no convictions or prosecutions under the Logan Act. The Text of the Act is as follows:

Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

During the Vietnam War when Jane Fonda went to Hanoi to meet with the enemy she was guilty of violating the Logan Act. During the Vietnam War when John Kerry secretly met with enemy leaders in Paris, he too was in violation of federal law.

Nancy Pelosi visiting the Syrian leader, and Jimmy Carter’s visits to the Middle East talking down America were both in violation of the Logan Act as well.

And now we have running for president, his Lord the Democratic Messiah, Barrack Hussein Obama. During his recent trip to Iraq it is alleged that Obama tried to negotiate with Iraqi leaders to delay the troop withdrawal (of course he wants credit for any troop withdrawal, and if troops begin withdrawing under the flag of victory now, then if he became president it would look as if he was simply continuing to do what George W. Bush had already begun). Word has it that nobody has been willing to follow Obama’s plans of delaying the troop withdrawal.

Notice, the Logan Act has been violated a number of times (surprise! by the liberal left!) yet never with indictments. And the cases I have mentioned above are only the tip of the ice berg. I personally believe that Democrats routinely violate the Logan Act, well knowing that nobody will be willing to prosecute, and even if the GOP tried to launch an investigation, the Republicans would probably not be able to make a charge stick.

The McCain campaign, however, is making sure the Democrats know that The Right has noticed what they are up to.

The Obama Camp has responded to it as well, denying the report that Barry has had secretly urged the Iraqis to postpone a deal to withdraw US troops until after November’s election.

Now that is what I call a patriotic president, right? – After all, his wife, Michelle, loves this country – becoming proud of America for the first time in her life when Barack received a political promotion.

Published in: on September 22, 2008 at 3:19 am  Comments (4)  
Tags: , , , , , ,

Messiah Killers

Community Organizers and Governors and the Messiah Killers

Congressman Steve Cohen (D-TN) confirmed to Conservatives what The Right has believed the Democrats think of Obama.

We joke around, calling Barack Obama the “Obamassiah,” and Rush Limbaugh jokingly calls Barack “His Lord, The Messiah.”

Why is it we joke so much about the Messiah-like treatment of Obama by the press and his followers? Has anybody actually come out and said it?

Granted, Oprah Winfrey said, “He’s the one.” There is even a blog addressing how Obama’s followers essentially proclaim him to be God-like (it is a satirical site). And there have been various other insinuations by the press and fellow Democrats that Barack Hussein Obama is somehow “holier than thou.” His followers, those rabid folks at the Obama Rallies with tears streaming down their cheeks, have been the largest providers of material that keeps the “Obama-Messiah” ball rolling. But nothing had yet been said that specifically compared Obama to a Messianic figure – at least not until now.

That brings us back to Congressman Steve Cohen. On the House of Representatives floor last Wednesday Cohen said, “Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus. Pontius Pilate was a governor.”

In other words, Cohen compared Obama to Jesus Christ, the ultimate messianic figure in history, and compared Sarah Palin to Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor that ordered the crucifixion of Christ.

The comment is outrageous, and confirms what Conservatives all along have been claiming the Democrats think of Barack Hussein Obama.

Of course, the statement also shows Cohen’s ignorance about Christianity.

Community Organizers are essentially folks that bring together communities using common interests. The Community Organizer may serve as a coordinator with social workers and social planners.

Jesus Christ was born solely to bear the sins of the world. He was born to die. He did teach along the way, but his ministry was short-lived, and it was his death that truly showed us the grace and mercy the Lord has for us. Of course, Christians believe that God has given humankind free will, and we are free to choose the paths we take – but as a just God, rejection of His gift to us must be accompanied with a consequence – and the consequence of the rejection of Christ is separation from God eternally (some would call this Hell, though “Hell” is not a Biblical term. The Biblical Book of Revelations calls this eternal damnation the “Lake of Fire,” from which the idea of Hell was obviously drawn from).

Of course, Cohen does not understand that, and that is fine. Because of “free will,” he is free to choose his faith. But his statement was an obvious attempt to present Obama as someone divine, a Light Worker (I suppose) as the New Age folks like to paint Obama as. The statement was also designed to show Sarah Palin as evil, somehow, comparing her to the Roman official that made sure the Messiah was killed on the Cross.

All this tells me is that the Democrats are willing to stoop to any level to try to keep the “Obama Hype” rolling, and discredit the GOP choice for Vice President. In other words, a comment that was obviously born from desperation.

So, if I am understanding the Democrats correctly, when McCain and Palin win the Presidential election in November over Obama and Biden, will that make the GOP Candidates Messiah killers?

Published in: on September 14, 2008 at 10:57 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Obama’s Desperation

Attacking Palin – Obama is at the top of the ticket and Palin is the VP nominee

Answer me this: If Sarah Palin is inexperienced as the Democrats are claiming, and as the vice presidential candidate she has no power to help the Republicans as the Democrats are claiming, then why is the top of the ticket (Obama) spending so much time discussing her, and why is the liberal bloggers and newscasters spending so much time attacking her?

Could it be that she is a bigger problem for the Obama Campaign than they are willing to admit? Shouldn’t they be spending their time dealing with McCain since he is the person at the top of the GOP ticket instead of spending all of their time trying to discredit Palin who is at the bottom of the Republican ticket?

Published in: on September 11, 2008 at 3:15 am  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , , , ,

Obama’s Illegal Campaign Contributor

Barack Obama’s Illegal Campaign Contributions


It is illegal for any U.S. candidate for federal office (and most state and local offices) to accept campaign contributions from foreign nationals. It is also illegal for any U.S. candidate for President to accept more than $2,300 per election cycle.
So, why has Barack Hussein Obama accepted over $24,000 from Monir and Hosam Edwan in Rafah, Gaza? And why is he lying about it by noting on his official filings with the Federal Election Commission that Rafah is in Georgia? Rafah is the HAMAS-controlled city on the border of Egypt and is the site of the Rafah gate.

Time for a Federal Election Commission complaint to be filed.

Obama–the candidate of HAMAS . . . literally AND monetarily.

Published in: on August 5, 2008 at 6:07 am  Comments (2)  
Tags: , , , , , ,