When was the last time that you actually gave any thought to our Nation’s culture? Typically, when we consider the culture of the United States, we hear terms such as melting pot, homogenous society, and multiculturalism used to describe it. But what exactly is culture? The American culture is the collective beliefs of the American people. Therefore, it is our beliefs that shape our national thought and actions. In short, we carry around our National culture in our hearts and it defines us as a people.
It is upon shared beliefs that man has built families, communities, states, and nations. Without them, a nation is nothing and its citizens are reduced to a state of anarchy. Because without these common ideological bonds, how can a people agree on national policy or make law? Yet time and again the American people are dissuaded from forming judgments based on morality, common decency, and politics. Without any moral compass, how can we raise our children and be good parents? How can we be productive members of our society? The short answer is that we cannot. This is because no group of human beings can exist without a common bond. For the United States, that bond was forged by the Declaration of Independence and later, the Constitution. These documents form the very fabric of our culture and by extension, our national identity. However, I fear that our culture is ill. It has been under assault for some time by political opportunists, illegal immigrants, and those who bear the title of citizen, but shirk the responsibility of citizenship. How then is our culture threatened and how do we correct the problem?
Like so many other things, the well meaning among us sought only to make the outsider welcome and comfortable. A noble ideal to be sure, but we all know that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, do we not? We began by looking the other way when a contractor used illegal immigrant labor. We label ATM machines, stores, government forms, products, etc. in multiple languages in order to make it easier for foreigners. We have steadfastly refused to do anything about illegal Latino immigration for one hundred years. We have begun the cultural eradication of Christianity and Christmas. We do not celebrate our own cultural identity, but revel in the culture of the foreigner. The United States Supreme Court has even looked to the laws of other nations to settle American cases. When I look around today I can hardly recognize my own native land.
The topography has not changed, but the moral landscape is vastly different from that of my youth. Because today’s values are subjective there can be no good and evil, nor can one make any sort of judgment with regard to values. Our land has become a moral tabula rasa that permits any behavior of the individual and solidifies the “if it feels good, do it” moral imperative of the 1960’s. With these principals inculcated in the youth of today and expounded by politicians, a terrible blow is struck against our national culture and unity.
Perhaps I am telling my age, but I can recall the news media ridiculing the Republicans for supporting family values (ethics and morals for those of you on the far left) in the past twenty to thirty years. Now that the Democrats have retaken congress, let us see if they have learned anything during their absence from control. Personally, I will be betting that they have not and we will see updated, epic, ethical masterpieces such as the House Banking Scandal II and the dismantling of the U.S. military and Intelligence services as homage to the Eighties Democrats, but I digress.
Even immigrants no longer wish to assimilate into what is left of American culture. They cluster together to live, do business only with each other, and do not take the time to learn the language fully. Latinos are the best example of this trend. I have encountered Latinos who have been in the U.S. for five years and cannot speak but a few words of our native tongue. Additionally, illegal immigrants may pay sales taxes, but their income is tax free because they are paid under the table. If that isn’t bad enough, they use social service and medical programs where you and I foot the bill despite them having eight hundred or more in cash in their pockets.
Irrespective of their illegal status, great numbers took to the streets to protest for their rights as illegal occupants. While many of our countrymen cheered them, I was sickened by the display. I was sickened because while they seek to maintain their illegal status, they want us to put their children through school, provide them with free medical care, and other social services that they may require. Unbelievable, not because they want these services, but because they had the audacity to actually take to the streets and protest for them as rights as illegal immigrants while they shun our culture. It is as if the United States has become a fast food restaurant for immigrants. An immigrant enters the U.S. illegally, examines menu, and says “Give me an order of free medical care and two orders of education for my kids and hold the taxes.”
The millions of immigrants who entered this country through Ellis Island sought become Americans and to integrate into our culture. Yes, they initially settled together, but then they began to learn the language, adopted our customs and practices, and were proud to declare themselves as Americans. Today, we have Chinese immigrants retiring and relocating back to China because they never felt at home in the United States. These leeches sucked the cash out of our Country and then returned to their own homeland when they were tired of us. Don’t worry though; they still maintain U.S. citizenship so that they can use our medical services.
So the next time someone seeks to do something about illegal immigration, making English the official language, or instituting objective morals and values, take interest in their project and give them a hand in achieving their goals. Otherwise, you may find yourself seeking to immigrate to a better place to live.
Friday, December 29, 2006
Thursday, December 21, 2006
A Kind Word and a Gun
It is interesting to me that the last war the United States won was World War II. Korea was a tie and Vietnam was touted as a loss by the left. I would argue that both Korea and Vietnam were victories, if only because we won the battles. If we did lose Vietnam, it was because we had lost our will to fight. So what makes World War II different?
World War II is different because we did not discriminate between military and civilian targets. We certainly did not go out of our way to target civilians, but we did not sweat it if some of them bought the farm. It was a war after all. That is why we “won” against the Axis powers. We did enough damage that they capitulated. In short, we destroyed their will to fight.
Sure, we had the werewolves in Germany to deal with, but we ended their insurrection without too much fuss. So why do we have such a problem with civilian casualties now? Partially because we are good guys and we don’t want to see needless suffering in the world, even in war and it is partly due to our extensive use of guided weaponry. But just because we can place a missile in a garbage can half a world away, it does not mean that we ought to do so.
By maintaining the “no collateral casualties” doctrine, we are giving our own populace an unreasonable expectation of modern warfare. Most citizens of the U.S. believe that you can target the uniformed military only and let the civilian go free in war. Unfortunately, that leaves our military open to insurgency by the civilian sector as well as hardened military who has shucked their uniforms in order to join the insurgency. This by the way is what is occurring in Iraq right now.
Personally, I thought the shock and awe bombardment used in Iraq was a joke. Had the Air Force carpet bombed Baghdad with 10,000 pound bombs, that action would have merited a shock and awe designation. In addition, every other city in Iraq would have been witness to the destruction and would not have allowed insurgency because they would not have wanted to see themselves on the receiving end of such an attack. Thus, the combative will of the Iraqi people would have been broken and American lives would have been spared.
That is the ultimate function of the military in the first place, to break the will of the enemy. When did we give up that objective as a matter of national policy? We fire bombed Dresden, we dropped two nuclear weapons on Japan and these actions, though distasteful, helped us and our allies to win a war because they destroyed the will of the enemy. Because our nation has displayed a wavering will, we have sealed our fate in the Middle East. We now have three choices before us, we can escalate the military violence and retake Iraq, we can reinforce our troops there and train the Iraq forces and suffer another setback similar to the fall of Saigon, or we can just cut and run as has been suggested by the peace loving citizens of the U.S. or the testicularly challenged as I prefer to call them.
Since the November elections, insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan has increased dramatically and the number of U.S. casualties has been rising. What does this mean, you may ask and I will tell you that this is the result of our will having wavered. Our enemies overseas will not back down and will not allow us to rest in the interim. They will simply up the ante because they now know that the U.S. will back away from the table. If there is a legacy of the Vietnamese war it is this, if you press the Americans hard enough they will falter and withdraw. As proof of this I offer the fact that Bin Ladden’s lieutenant has called for all out jihad in the Palestinian territories. I will also tell you that Hezbollah is back at full combat strength and Iran and Syria are doing gleeful back flips.
General William Tecumseh Sherman once said, “War is Hell.” The good General then proceeded to prove his point by burning down much of the South. While not pleasant, it was an effective tactic. The American people no longer have a realistic grasp of what a war means, but our enemies certainly do. Until we return to reality, our nation will run through the Vietnam Syndrome again and again until we finally wake up and return to the offensive strategy and tactics that enabled us to win in World War II. Until we do so, we are not doing ourselves any favors.
World War II is different because we did not discriminate between military and civilian targets. We certainly did not go out of our way to target civilians, but we did not sweat it if some of them bought the farm. It was a war after all. That is why we “won” against the Axis powers. We did enough damage that they capitulated. In short, we destroyed their will to fight.
Sure, we had the werewolves in Germany to deal with, but we ended their insurrection without too much fuss. So why do we have such a problem with civilian casualties now? Partially because we are good guys and we don’t want to see needless suffering in the world, even in war and it is partly due to our extensive use of guided weaponry. But just because we can place a missile in a garbage can half a world away, it does not mean that we ought to do so.
By maintaining the “no collateral casualties” doctrine, we are giving our own populace an unreasonable expectation of modern warfare. Most citizens of the U.S. believe that you can target the uniformed military only and let the civilian go free in war. Unfortunately, that leaves our military open to insurgency by the civilian sector as well as hardened military who has shucked their uniforms in order to join the insurgency. This by the way is what is occurring in Iraq right now.
Personally, I thought the shock and awe bombardment used in Iraq was a joke. Had the Air Force carpet bombed Baghdad with 10,000 pound bombs, that action would have merited a shock and awe designation. In addition, every other city in Iraq would have been witness to the destruction and would not have allowed insurgency because they would not have wanted to see themselves on the receiving end of such an attack. Thus, the combative will of the Iraqi people would have been broken and American lives would have been spared.
That is the ultimate function of the military in the first place, to break the will of the enemy. When did we give up that objective as a matter of national policy? We fire bombed Dresden, we dropped two nuclear weapons on Japan and these actions, though distasteful, helped us and our allies to win a war because they destroyed the will of the enemy. Because our nation has displayed a wavering will, we have sealed our fate in the Middle East. We now have three choices before us, we can escalate the military violence and retake Iraq, we can reinforce our troops there and train the Iraq forces and suffer another setback similar to the fall of Saigon, or we can just cut and run as has been suggested by the peace loving citizens of the U.S. or the testicularly challenged as I prefer to call them.
Since the November elections, insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan has increased dramatically and the number of U.S. casualties has been rising. What does this mean, you may ask and I will tell you that this is the result of our will having wavered. Our enemies overseas will not back down and will not allow us to rest in the interim. They will simply up the ante because they now know that the U.S. will back away from the table. If there is a legacy of the Vietnamese war it is this, if you press the Americans hard enough they will falter and withdraw. As proof of this I offer the fact that Bin Ladden’s lieutenant has called for all out jihad in the Palestinian territories. I will also tell you that Hezbollah is back at full combat strength and Iran and Syria are doing gleeful back flips.
General William Tecumseh Sherman once said, “War is Hell.” The good General then proceeded to prove his point by burning down much of the South. While not pleasant, it was an effective tactic. The American people no longer have a realistic grasp of what a war means, but our enemies certainly do. Until we return to reality, our nation will run through the Vietnam Syndrome again and again until we finally wake up and return to the offensive strategy and tactics that enabled us to win in World War II. Until we do so, we are not doing ourselves any favors.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Can't We All Just Get Along?
History can be instructive when examining the behavior of man. Take for example one Neville Chamberlain. He was the British Prime Minister that felt Germany had been mistreated at the end of World War I and was now saber rattling in 1939 in order to break out of its imposed restraints. Mr. Chamberlain's objective was to avoid a war that could engulf Europe and create hardship for all. As a result, he handed over a sovereign nation to Adolf Hitler in order to "just get along". When Mr. Chamberlain came home to Great Britain he said, "This is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time."
Chamberlain's comments upon his return home are indicative of his high hopes for peace. The cost? Just one sovereign nation sacrificed for the benefit of all. Not a bad trade unless you happen to live in the nation granted to Germany. Unfortunately for Chamberlain his ridiculous plan only forestalled the inevitable for a brief time before the start of World War II and the deaths of more than 60 MILLION people. As difficult as it is to wrap your mind around the 6 million butchered in the holocaust, what are the implications of a number ten times larger?
However, Chamberlain's influence did not leave us after this horrific public policy failure. Somehow, it permeated the minds of youth in the 1960's and it was also reflected in the music of that era. Remember John Lennon's song lyrics, "all we are saying is give peace a chance..." I suppose that Mr. Lennon really meant "all we are saying is give peace a chance again" since the song came after the great appeasement debacle. I cannot help but imagine that Lennon would have liked to add another 60 million deaths to make sure that peace had a good chance at success. I mean really, is 120 million dead not worth the cost of peace?
Irrespective of what period of history you examine you cannot help but to arrive at the conclusion that war is a necessity. I say this not to preclude diplomacy, but to supplement it. After all, Clausewitz accurately observed that war is merely the continuation of national policy by other means. If we accept that Clausewitz was correct and that man's very nature makes war necessary in order to preserve your nation and citizens, then we can accurately assess the impact of appeasement.
Appeasement is merely an effect of the "Can't we all just get along" mentality. The truth is, we cannot all just get along. For example, have you ever tried to persuade a bullet not to strike its intended target? Or speak to a bomb about not detonating and murdering numerous people? While one could argue that these are inanimate objects and that people have feelings and families and are therefore open to negotiation, they would be incorrect in their assessment.
The German soldiers gassing Jews had families and emotions and they killed without pity or remorse. Stalin had emotions and a family, he killed twenty-seven million in the Ukraine. Mao Tse Tung had emotions and a family and he slaughtered eighty million of his own countrymen. Two million in Cambodia by the Kmer Rouge and about 800,000 in Rwanda were murdered by men who had emotions and family. In fact, during the preceding 100 years about 115 million people were murdered for political reasons.
I also seem to recall that someone said that we will never forget the victims of the holocaust and that we would prevent a second holocaust regardless of the price to ourselves because we were horrified by the carnage we saw when U.S. troops liberated the death camps. Since the end of World War II, there have been 19.6 holocausts. Let me say that again, there have been 19.6 holocausts and we have done nothing. So apparently, theories regarding the susceptibility of men who are engaged in shedding the blood of others to negotiation are fatally flawed.
Still need some convincing? Fathers and mothers sending sons and daughters into public shopping areas with bombs strapped to themselves and then proud as punch when they detonate the bombs killing themselves and numerous innocent people around them ring any bells for you?
But the specter of Chamberlain's failure still haunts us. Today, we want to become friends with Syria and Iran and have them help in forming Iraq as a nation. Never mind that both are known supporters of international terror, that Syria believes in assassination as a modern political tool, that Iran has expressed a burning desire to see Israel destroyed and Hitler's great work completed and oh yeah, they are seeking to develop thermonuclear weapons. Despite all of this we still want to be friends to these nations and seek their help in establishing Iraq. What, we don't have enough enemies in the Middle East and we need to create more?
As our nation continues to advance in this century, the parallels between our time and the events that transpired in 1938 are downright creepy. Hitler sent a letter to Roosevelt proclaiming Nazi Germany's desire for peace, Iran's president has done so. Nazi Germany was readying itself to carry out its monstrous final solution, Iran has taken up Hitlers philosophy on Israel and the need to destroy it utterly. In 1938 the world laughed at the premise of Mein Kampf as just Hitler spouting off and in Iran we do the same thing with Amadinejad.
The American people have spoken in the last election and so we turn to abandoning the fight against evil today, but we do so at great cost. The next time we face this foe it may be too late to save Israel and it may be too late to save ourselves. That is the price we must now pay because of the appeasement mindset that paralyzes our national will to confront evil. This is the future that Cindy Sheehan, John Kerry, and Nancy Pelosi would bring you not out of malice, but out of apathy toward evil. Their method today is the same method that allowed six million Jews to die in circumstances that are as close to hell on earth as you can get without the lake of fire.
We cannot all "just get along." To think so is foolishness and worse will result in greater bloodshed than is necessary to defend those who cannot defend themselves. The truth of the matter is simple, some folks just need killing. I dearly wish that such was not the case, but that does not make the statement any less true. The only question left is are you going to defend the victims of evil or will you try Neville Chamberlain's approach?
Chamberlain's comments upon his return home are indicative of his high hopes for peace. The cost? Just one sovereign nation sacrificed for the benefit of all. Not a bad trade unless you happen to live in the nation granted to Germany. Unfortunately for Chamberlain his ridiculous plan only forestalled the inevitable for a brief time before the start of World War II and the deaths of more than 60 MILLION people. As difficult as it is to wrap your mind around the 6 million butchered in the holocaust, what are the implications of a number ten times larger?
However, Chamberlain's influence did not leave us after this horrific public policy failure. Somehow, it permeated the minds of youth in the 1960's and it was also reflected in the music of that era. Remember John Lennon's song lyrics, "all we are saying is give peace a chance..." I suppose that Mr. Lennon really meant "all we are saying is give peace a chance again" since the song came after the great appeasement debacle. I cannot help but imagine that Lennon would have liked to add another 60 million deaths to make sure that peace had a good chance at success. I mean really, is 120 million dead not worth the cost of peace?
Irrespective of what period of history you examine you cannot help but to arrive at the conclusion that war is a necessity. I say this not to preclude diplomacy, but to supplement it. After all, Clausewitz accurately observed that war is merely the continuation of national policy by other means. If we accept that Clausewitz was correct and that man's very nature makes war necessary in order to preserve your nation and citizens, then we can accurately assess the impact of appeasement.
Appeasement is merely an effect of the "Can't we all just get along" mentality. The truth is, we cannot all just get along. For example, have you ever tried to persuade a bullet not to strike its intended target? Or speak to a bomb about not detonating and murdering numerous people? While one could argue that these are inanimate objects and that people have feelings and families and are therefore open to negotiation, they would be incorrect in their assessment.
The German soldiers gassing Jews had families and emotions and they killed without pity or remorse. Stalin had emotions and a family, he killed twenty-seven million in the Ukraine. Mao Tse Tung had emotions and a family and he slaughtered eighty million of his own countrymen. Two million in Cambodia by the Kmer Rouge and about 800,000 in Rwanda were murdered by men who had emotions and family. In fact, during the preceding 100 years about 115 million people were murdered for political reasons.
I also seem to recall that someone said that we will never forget the victims of the holocaust and that we would prevent a second holocaust regardless of the price to ourselves because we were horrified by the carnage we saw when U.S. troops liberated the death camps. Since the end of World War II, there have been 19.6 holocausts. Let me say that again, there have been 19.6 holocausts and we have done nothing. So apparently, theories regarding the susceptibility of men who are engaged in shedding the blood of others to negotiation are fatally flawed.
Still need some convincing? Fathers and mothers sending sons and daughters into public shopping areas with bombs strapped to themselves and then proud as punch when they detonate the bombs killing themselves and numerous innocent people around them ring any bells for you?
But the specter of Chamberlain's failure still haunts us. Today, we want to become friends with Syria and Iran and have them help in forming Iraq as a nation. Never mind that both are known supporters of international terror, that Syria believes in assassination as a modern political tool, that Iran has expressed a burning desire to see Israel destroyed and Hitler's great work completed and oh yeah, they are seeking to develop thermonuclear weapons. Despite all of this we still want to be friends to these nations and seek their help in establishing Iraq. What, we don't have enough enemies in the Middle East and we need to create more?
As our nation continues to advance in this century, the parallels between our time and the events that transpired in 1938 are downright creepy. Hitler sent a letter to Roosevelt proclaiming Nazi Germany's desire for peace, Iran's president has done so. Nazi Germany was readying itself to carry out its monstrous final solution, Iran has taken up Hitlers philosophy on Israel and the need to destroy it utterly. In 1938 the world laughed at the premise of Mein Kampf as just Hitler spouting off and in Iran we do the same thing with Amadinejad.
The American people have spoken in the last election and so we turn to abandoning the fight against evil today, but we do so at great cost. The next time we face this foe it may be too late to save Israel and it may be too late to save ourselves. That is the price we must now pay because of the appeasement mindset that paralyzes our national will to confront evil. This is the future that Cindy Sheehan, John Kerry, and Nancy Pelosi would bring you not out of malice, but out of apathy toward evil. Their method today is the same method that allowed six million Jews to die in circumstances that are as close to hell on earth as you can get without the lake of fire.
We cannot all "just get along." To think so is foolishness and worse will result in greater bloodshed than is necessary to defend those who cannot defend themselves. The truth of the matter is simple, some folks just need killing. I dearly wish that such was not the case, but that does not make the statement any less true. The only question left is are you going to defend the victims of evil or will you try Neville Chamberlain's approach?
Thursday, December 7, 2006
Remembering Pearl
Today is December 7th, the anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack. For some, it is a time of quiet reflection about the cost of war and for others it is just another day. President Roosevelt said that December 7th, 1941 would be a day that would live in infamy, but as I look around I find that not to be true.
Many of my fellow citizens go about their business blithely unaware of the signifigance of the date. They do not remember that more that 2400 lost their lives, that the Pacific fleet was cripled, and that Japan, in one stroke, made itself dominant in the Asian theater. Yet the United States recovered and eventually forced Japan to surrender unconditionally or face total annihilation by nuclear inferno. In that war, we did what we had to do to win. There would be no bargains struck between the parties unless it was total surrender without terms and the U.S. was the victor.
Today, things are vastly different. We fight with our strong right arm tied behind our back and seek to make friends with our enemies while they are earnestly trying to murder us. We even seek to forge alliances with the greatest evils in the Middle East in order to show that we are good and just. Worse, our elected leaders seek to bring about the downfall of our nation in order to appease the terrorists and win favor with Europe. Never mind that we are the aggrieved party or that September 11th was a greater tragedy than was Pearl Harbor.
Pearl Harbor shocked a nation and made its citizens very angry. The result was an outcry for war and victory. To the generation of our grandparents, that meant that they would accept nothing short of unconditional surrender. Winston Churchill remarked that, "The Americans were finally in the war. They were in up to their necks and in to the death. Hitler was finished, Mussolini was finished, and the Japanese, why the Japanese would be ground to a powder."
Churchill said this knowing that the fury of the United States would be a terrible thing to stand against. Even Yammamoto, who conceived and ordered the attack on Pearl knew that America would never forgive what had happened at Pear Harbor. Yet today, terrorists and the governments that support them can inflict worse damage upon us and we will seek to be friends. What has happened to the American spirit?
Was our grandparent's generation truly the greatest generation?
I cannot but help to feel ashamed not for what we have done, but for what we have left undone. When our grandparents faced the same test, they passed with flying colors, but when we had a chance to stand in their place and face as great an evil, we failed as a nation. We did not fail because we did not have the weapons, or the ability to transport men and material, or the bombs, or the tanks and artillery. We failed because we no longer possess the character to fight evil. We would rather live with it and call it friend. That is an unpleasant truth, but truth nevertheless.
We may be a military super power, but without the will to act justly and to fight our enemies we are merely a spectator on the world stage. To the men and women who fought World War II and manned our factories and kept the home fires burning, I salute you in remembrance of this day. You taught us the meaning of sacrifice and duty. I am hopeful that one day your descendants will learn it.
Many of my fellow citizens go about their business blithely unaware of the signifigance of the date. They do not remember that more that 2400 lost their lives, that the Pacific fleet was cripled, and that Japan, in one stroke, made itself dominant in the Asian theater. Yet the United States recovered and eventually forced Japan to surrender unconditionally or face total annihilation by nuclear inferno. In that war, we did what we had to do to win. There would be no bargains struck between the parties unless it was total surrender without terms and the U.S. was the victor.
Today, things are vastly different. We fight with our strong right arm tied behind our back and seek to make friends with our enemies while they are earnestly trying to murder us. We even seek to forge alliances with the greatest evils in the Middle East in order to show that we are good and just. Worse, our elected leaders seek to bring about the downfall of our nation in order to appease the terrorists and win favor with Europe. Never mind that we are the aggrieved party or that September 11th was a greater tragedy than was Pearl Harbor.
Pearl Harbor shocked a nation and made its citizens very angry. The result was an outcry for war and victory. To the generation of our grandparents, that meant that they would accept nothing short of unconditional surrender. Winston Churchill remarked that, "The Americans were finally in the war. They were in up to their necks and in to the death. Hitler was finished, Mussolini was finished, and the Japanese, why the Japanese would be ground to a powder."
Churchill said this knowing that the fury of the United States would be a terrible thing to stand against. Even Yammamoto, who conceived and ordered the attack on Pearl knew that America would never forgive what had happened at Pear Harbor. Yet today, terrorists and the governments that support them can inflict worse damage upon us and we will seek to be friends. What has happened to the American spirit?
Was our grandparent's generation truly the greatest generation?
I cannot but help to feel ashamed not for what we have done, but for what we have left undone. When our grandparents faced the same test, they passed with flying colors, but when we had a chance to stand in their place and face as great an evil, we failed as a nation. We did not fail because we did not have the weapons, or the ability to transport men and material, or the bombs, or the tanks and artillery. We failed because we no longer possess the character to fight evil. We would rather live with it and call it friend. That is an unpleasant truth, but truth nevertheless.
We may be a military super power, but without the will to act justly and to fight our enemies we are merely a spectator on the world stage. To the men and women who fought World War II and manned our factories and kept the home fires burning, I salute you in remembrance of this day. You taught us the meaning of sacrifice and duty. I am hopeful that one day your descendants will learn it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
