"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Thomas Jefferson.
Socialism as we understand it didn't exist in Jefferson's day but he obviously had an uncomfortable inkling it was coming. Sadly, it seems that we as a people have decided not to heed this Founder's warning.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Sunday, October 28, 2007
"Restoring America's Image"
Hillary Clinton already has a plan for when she's elected president. Quite presumptive of her, considering she hasn't even been elected the Dems' presidential candidate. Anyway, dear Hillary recently announced that, after her election, she'll immediately send emissaries around the world to proclaim the end of "cowboy diplomacy" and restore America's image. How sweet. Not!
"Restoring America's image" sounds great but is just another front in liberals' war against Bush instead of the terrorists who want to kill us. The slogan derives from liberals' persistent delusion that terrorism is caused by the "imperialism" of the Bush administration, beginning with the Iraq War. If we would only surrender in Iraq and sell out the Israelis, liberals believe, the Arab/Muslim world would love us and global utopia would break out. That's the essence of their idea of "restoring America's image": undermine the Bush administration by agreeing with the America haters and appeasing our enemies.
Liberals have conveniently forgotten all the terrorist attacks against America that occurred before Bush was president. The World Trade Center was first attacked in 1993 when Bill Clinton, Hillary's hubby, was president. Our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were also bombed during Clinton's presidency when, presumably, everybody loved America. Many other terrorists attacks were launched against this country in the pre-Bush era, going all the way back to the Iran hostage crisis under wimp-in-chief Jimmy Carter. But that's reality and the anti-Bush psychotics have simply willed reality out of their minds.
Let's be honest. Hillary Clinton and all the other liberals don't give a rat's ass about America's image. The call to restore our image is just a cover for their policy of rabid anti-Bush hatred and anti-Americanism. It's a cover for their sympathy for radical Islam. It's a cover for their defeatism. It's a cover for their internationalism. It's a cover for their socialism. If you vote for liberals this is what you'll get. You've been warned. Now do the right thing and side with those who care about our country's survival. The best image for America is that of a free, intact, sovereign nation. If you want to restore anything, restore that.
"Restoring America's image" sounds great but is just another front in liberals' war against Bush instead of the terrorists who want to kill us. The slogan derives from liberals' persistent delusion that terrorism is caused by the "imperialism" of the Bush administration, beginning with the Iraq War. If we would only surrender in Iraq and sell out the Israelis, liberals believe, the Arab/Muslim world would love us and global utopia would break out. That's the essence of their idea of "restoring America's image": undermine the Bush administration by agreeing with the America haters and appeasing our enemies.
Liberals have conveniently forgotten all the terrorist attacks against America that occurred before Bush was president. The World Trade Center was first attacked in 1993 when Bill Clinton, Hillary's hubby, was president. Our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were also bombed during Clinton's presidency when, presumably, everybody loved America. Many other terrorists attacks were launched against this country in the pre-Bush era, going all the way back to the Iran hostage crisis under wimp-in-chief Jimmy Carter. But that's reality and the anti-Bush psychotics have simply willed reality out of their minds.
Let's be honest. Hillary Clinton and all the other liberals don't give a rat's ass about America's image. The call to restore our image is just a cover for their policy of rabid anti-Bush hatred and anti-Americanism. It's a cover for their sympathy for radical Islam. It's a cover for their defeatism. It's a cover for their internationalism. It's a cover for their socialism. If you vote for liberals this is what you'll get. You've been warned. Now do the right thing and side with those who care about our country's survival. The best image for America is that of a free, intact, sovereign nation. If you want to restore anything, restore that.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
GAE Rights Yes, Freedom No
The GAE (Gay Activist Elite) Stalinists have struck again, this time across the big pond. Britain has instituted new sexual "equality" regulations and they have cost a Christian couple the foster son they've loved for two years.
Sixty-five-year-old Vincent Matherick and his wife Pauline, 61, became foster parents in 2001 and have successfully nurtured 28 troubled children since then. But Somerset County decided the Mathericks weren't fit to keep their latest foster child after they refused to sign a paper agreeing to teach the boy that homosexuality is good. Consequently, the 11-year-old has been taken from a loving home and placed in a county hostel. Vincent Matherick explained that he doesn't hate gays but felt he couldn't endorse behaviour that conflicted with the Word of God.
That didn't matter. Freedom of religion and conscience, not to mention a child's happiness, are inconsequential compared to the lofty goal of normalizing homosexuality.
This is a shocking story. There's nothing more Orwellian than government officials entering people's homes and telling them what to teach their children. Granted, the Mathericks were foster parents who, like all foster parents, have to abide by state standards. But how does not approving of homosexuality suddenly make them unfit when they weren't unfit for the last six years? And you better believe that if the GAE Stalinists can get away with using the government to impose their views on foster parents they'll use the government to impose their views on natural parents. Mark my words. The day is coming in the West when parents will be assigned a social worker to make sure they're raising their children "correctly". And a large percentage of those social workers will be GAE.
For now, the Mathericks have been forced out of fostering for being politically incorrect. They've indicated that they might appeal the decision of the Somerset County Council. I pray they do and I pray they win. Children need a loving home like the one the Mathericks are ready and willing to provide more than they need an ideology. Sadly, Britain's GAE Stalinists think otherwise and children are paying the price.
Sixty-five-year-old Vincent Matherick and his wife Pauline, 61, became foster parents in 2001 and have successfully nurtured 28 troubled children since then. But Somerset County decided the Mathericks weren't fit to keep their latest foster child after they refused to sign a paper agreeing to teach the boy that homosexuality is good. Consequently, the 11-year-old has been taken from a loving home and placed in a county hostel. Vincent Matherick explained that he doesn't hate gays but felt he couldn't endorse behaviour that conflicted with the Word of God.
That didn't matter. Freedom of religion and conscience, not to mention a child's happiness, are inconsequential compared to the lofty goal of normalizing homosexuality.
This is a shocking story. There's nothing more Orwellian than government officials entering people's homes and telling them what to teach their children. Granted, the Mathericks were foster parents who, like all foster parents, have to abide by state standards. But how does not approving of homosexuality suddenly make them unfit when they weren't unfit for the last six years? And you better believe that if the GAE Stalinists can get away with using the government to impose their views on foster parents they'll use the government to impose their views on natural parents. Mark my words. The day is coming in the West when parents will be assigned a social worker to make sure they're raising their children "correctly". And a large percentage of those social workers will be GAE.
For now, the Mathericks have been forced out of fostering for being politically incorrect. They've indicated that they might appeal the decision of the Somerset County Council. I pray they do and I pray they win. Children need a loving home like the one the Mathericks are ready and willing to provide more than they need an ideology. Sadly, Britain's GAE Stalinists think otherwise and children are paying the price.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Predators and Traitors
Peace activists are anti-military. No matter how much they claim otherwise, these people hate our troops and the country they fight for. I was reminded of this just yesterday while listening to the radio.
I was driving my Mom to the store when Michael Medved's talk show came on. His guest was a representative of the "anti-war" group Code Pink (CP). Unfortunately, I don't remember the woman's name, but her words are unforgettable. This woman admitted that she and Code Pink, who were trying to close a Marine recruiting office in Berkeley, CA, called our troops predators and traitors. That's right, predators and traitors. That's what the peace crowd thinks of our soldiers.
Michael Medved asked this sorry excuse for an American why she and CP would call our military such names. This woman claimed that the military recruiters were predators because they were going after Berkeley's "vulnerable youth", and that they were traitors because they'd betrayed the trust of said youth by not telling them the whole story about military service. I'm not sure what this woman meant by the "whole story". It's no secret that the military fights wars and that in war people get injured and killed. Young people who are or might be considering joining the armed forces already know that. So where's the betrayal of trust?
Of course, this isn't the first time liberals have shown their hatred for America's finest. "Anti-war" protestors in Oregon--I believe it was Oregon--burned an American soldier in effigy. Brian de Palma has made a movie protraying our troops in Iraq as a bunch of raping, murdering thugs. Cindy Sheehan referred to our boys, including her own son Casey, as murderers. Rosie O'Donnell insinuated that our troops are terrorists who've killed nearly a million Iraqis. Susan Sarandon and her lover Tim Robbins made similar accusations. And let's not forget the entire city of San Francisco which has banned ROTC from its schools, denied the USS Iowa the right to dock at its port, and prevented the Marines from filming a recruiting commercial there. But they support the troops, the peaceniks say. Don't you believe it!
Believe what these people say and do when they're on their home turf. Believe what they say and do when they're among like-minded folks who won't question them. Believe what they say and do when they're caught up in the sanctimonious moment of "marching for peace". But don't ever believe them when they say they love our troops. They hate our troops. Remember, they called them predators and traitors. You can't get more hateful than that. Believe me.
I was driving my Mom to the store when Michael Medved's talk show came on. His guest was a representative of the "anti-war" group Code Pink (CP). Unfortunately, I don't remember the woman's name, but her words are unforgettable. This woman admitted that she and Code Pink, who were trying to close a Marine recruiting office in Berkeley, CA, called our troops predators and traitors. That's right, predators and traitors. That's what the peace crowd thinks of our soldiers.
Michael Medved asked this sorry excuse for an American why she and CP would call our military such names. This woman claimed that the military recruiters were predators because they were going after Berkeley's "vulnerable youth", and that they were traitors because they'd betrayed the trust of said youth by not telling them the whole story about military service. I'm not sure what this woman meant by the "whole story". It's no secret that the military fights wars and that in war people get injured and killed. Young people who are or might be considering joining the armed forces already know that. So where's the betrayal of trust?
Of course, this isn't the first time liberals have shown their hatred for America's finest. "Anti-war" protestors in Oregon--I believe it was Oregon--burned an American soldier in effigy. Brian de Palma has made a movie protraying our troops in Iraq as a bunch of raping, murdering thugs. Cindy Sheehan referred to our boys, including her own son Casey, as murderers. Rosie O'Donnell insinuated that our troops are terrorists who've killed nearly a million Iraqis. Susan Sarandon and her lover Tim Robbins made similar accusations. And let's not forget the entire city of San Francisco which has banned ROTC from its schools, denied the USS Iowa the right to dock at its port, and prevented the Marines from filming a recruiting commercial there. But they support the troops, the peaceniks say. Don't you believe it!
Believe what these people say and do when they're on their home turf. Believe what they say and do when they're among like-minded folks who won't question them. Believe what they say and do when they're caught up in the sanctimonious moment of "marching for peace". But don't ever believe them when they say they love our troops. They hate our troops. Remember, they called them predators and traitors. You can't get more hateful than that. Believe me.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Libertinism Uber Alles
I believe liberals want an end to age of consent laws. In fact, I believe liberals want an end to ALL laws regulating sexuality. When I see liberals voting to pass out the Pill to eleven-year-old girls; when I see liberals opposing tough penalties for child rapists; when I see liberals imposing gay marriage on people who've already voted against it, I can come to no other conclusion.
Liberals are libertines. Sexual freedom is their core principle. That, and not respect for women's rights, is the real motive for their love affair with abortion. An instant end to pregnancy gets women back into the all-important game of sleeping around--oops!--I mean hooking up. Likewise, passing out birth control to middle schoolers is not about protecting them from STDs and/or unplanned pregnancy; rather, it's about conditioning adults to accept the "fact" that kids, even quite young ones, can and do consent to sex.
Think about it. How can you give condoms or the Pill to children without tacitly admitting that said children can consent to the activity those items are for? You can't. And once you accept that children can consent to sex, the age of the people they're having sex with becomes irrelevant. After all, if an eleven-year-old can consent to sex with another eleven-year-old, why not with a 15-year-old? Or a 20-year-old? Or a 30-year-old?
I can easily imagine the day when an accused child molester will insist that little Suzy wanted it and use as proof the birth control pills she got from her friendly school nurse. The nurse not only knew that Suzy was sexually active, the molester's lawyer will argue, she condoned the 12-year-old's behaviour by giving her contraceptives, no questions asked. So, if his middle aged client is guilty of a crime, the school nurse is a clear accessory. I don't think you want to be the nurse who'll have to answer that charge.
Liberals will insist that the above scenario is just hysterical, right-wing propaganda against personal freedom. But liberals don't believe in freedom, not when it comes to sex. Then, liberals are pure, unadulterated libertines opposing ALL judgements and restrictions on sexuality. Everyone, including children, must be free to do as they please with their bodies. For liberals this is enlightened, progressive thinking. To the clear thinking masses it's cultural suicide, and it will not stand.
Liberals are libertines. Sexual freedom is their core principle. That, and not respect for women's rights, is the real motive for their love affair with abortion. An instant end to pregnancy gets women back into the all-important game of sleeping around--oops!--I mean hooking up. Likewise, passing out birth control to middle schoolers is not about protecting them from STDs and/or unplanned pregnancy; rather, it's about conditioning adults to accept the "fact" that kids, even quite young ones, can and do consent to sex.
Think about it. How can you give condoms or the Pill to children without tacitly admitting that said children can consent to the activity those items are for? You can't. And once you accept that children can consent to sex, the age of the people they're having sex with becomes irrelevant. After all, if an eleven-year-old can consent to sex with another eleven-year-old, why not with a 15-year-old? Or a 20-year-old? Or a 30-year-old?
I can easily imagine the day when an accused child molester will insist that little Suzy wanted it and use as proof the birth control pills she got from her friendly school nurse. The nurse not only knew that Suzy was sexually active, the molester's lawyer will argue, she condoned the 12-year-old's behaviour by giving her contraceptives, no questions asked. So, if his middle aged client is guilty of a crime, the school nurse is a clear accessory. I don't think you want to be the nurse who'll have to answer that charge.
Liberals will insist that the above scenario is just hysterical, right-wing propaganda against personal freedom. But liberals don't believe in freedom, not when it comes to sex. Then, liberals are pure, unadulterated libertines opposing ALL judgements and restrictions on sexuality. Everyone, including children, must be free to do as they please with their bodies. For liberals this is enlightened, progressive thinking. To the clear thinking masses it's cultural suicide, and it will not stand.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Rain in the Sahara
Last Wednesday the House passed a nonbinding resolution labelling as genocide the killing of 1 million Armenians by Turkey during WWI. On Sunday House Speaker Nancy Pelosi vowed to push forward on the resolution despite bitter protest from Turkey. Now I agree that those murders were in fact genocide. I also believe that they were the last gasp of jihad that Islam could muster before it was subdued by the European powers. I don't believe for one minute, though, that Pelosi wants this resolution because she cares about honoring the Armenian dead or making a statement about the nobility of America (Look! America is condemning genocide. America is good!).
Nancy Pelosi wants the Armenian resolution because she wants to upset our relationship with Turkey. Why? Because Turkey is our staunch ally in the Iraq War, allowing supplies from fuel to water to reach our troops from its soil. If Turkey ends its military relationship with us over this resolution, as it has threatened to do, we'd have to reroute those supplies in ways that could be prohibitively expensive. And if you can't supply an army, it can't fight. Now you're getting the picture.
This whole resolution business is about ensuring defeat in the Iraq War and doing it in a way that normally only our enemies would try: by cutting off supplies to our troops. This makes me sick. In her effort to please her fanatically anti-Bush base, Pelosi is willing to sacrifice our boys. And then she tries to make her dirty work look clean by wrapping it up in specious concern for the memory of slaughtered Armenians. If I were Armenian I'd be outraged at such exploitation of the Armenian nation's greatest tragedy.
If Pelosi, or any other American, wants to oppose the Iraq War they certainly have the right to do so. But they should be patriotic about it and not try to cut our troops' legs out from under them. And they should have the decency not to use another people's tragedy to cover their pro-defeat shenanigans. But expecting patriotism and decency from Pelosi who, after all, hails from San Francisco, is like expecting rain in the Sahara. It ain't happenin'.
Nancy Pelosi wants the Armenian resolution because she wants to upset our relationship with Turkey. Why? Because Turkey is our staunch ally in the Iraq War, allowing supplies from fuel to water to reach our troops from its soil. If Turkey ends its military relationship with us over this resolution, as it has threatened to do, we'd have to reroute those supplies in ways that could be prohibitively expensive. And if you can't supply an army, it can't fight. Now you're getting the picture.
This whole resolution business is about ensuring defeat in the Iraq War and doing it in a way that normally only our enemies would try: by cutting off supplies to our troops. This makes me sick. In her effort to please her fanatically anti-Bush base, Pelosi is willing to sacrifice our boys. And then she tries to make her dirty work look clean by wrapping it up in specious concern for the memory of slaughtered Armenians. If I were Armenian I'd be outraged at such exploitation of the Armenian nation's greatest tragedy.
If Pelosi, or any other American, wants to oppose the Iraq War they certainly have the right to do so. But they should be patriotic about it and not try to cut our troops' legs out from under them. And they should have the decency not to use another people's tragedy to cover their pro-defeat shenanigans. But expecting patriotism and decency from Pelosi who, after all, hails from San Francisco, is like expecting rain in the Sahara. It ain't happenin'.
Monday, October 08, 2007
Happy Columbus Day!
Happy Columbus Day! I hope you had a great holiday and took the time to remember the man who paved the way for the birth of America. Columbus rocks!
For a slightly more detailed view of Columbus Day see my post on my blog RA Folk Nation at http://rafolknation.blogspot.com/.
For a slightly more detailed view of Columbus Day see my post on my blog RA Folk Nation at http://rafolknation.blogspot.com/.
Friday, October 05, 2007
No Old Glory for Obama
I was watching tv tonight and just saw a story about Barack Obama that I can't believe. It seems that "patriot" Obama has decided to stop wearing his American flag lapel pin. Why? Obama claimed that he preferred to simply talk about what he wants to do for our country and that would show Americans his inner patriotism. Not buying it. Considering the stranglehold that far-left groups like MoveOn.org and The Daily Kos have on the Democratic presidential candidates, I suspect that some far-left puppet master told Obama to ditch the Stars and Stripes--or else.
Whatever the reason Obama removed the flag pin, it was a big mistake to do it. He can talk all he wants to about showing his patriotism from the inside out, taking off the pin clearly reveals that Obama is uncomfortable with being American. It's like John Kerry claiming, in the '04 presidential campaign, to be a good Catholic while also insisting that he wouldn't wear his faith on his sleeve. Why not? If you're so religious, why would you be reluctant to show it? Likewise, if you're so patriotic, why would you be ashamed to flaunt it?
Of course, I understand that the wearing of symbols--flags, crosses, or whatever--can be a shallow and hypocritical ploy to get votes or win over public opinion, but it can also MEAN SOMETHING. It can reveal where someone's heart is truly at, where his allegiance truly lies.
Maybe Obama really is patriotic, but felt that would hurt his chances with the far-left crowd he apparently thinks he needs to win. So he dropped Old Glory to reassure that constituentcy that he's not TOO American. Or maybe the opposite is true. Maybe Obama is an anti-American American and dumped the flag because he was tired of not acting in sync with his true feelings.
I don't know what really motivated Obama to do what he did. I do know that his action won't help liberals repair their bad reputation on patriotism. Surely Obama knows that. I guess that was a price he was willing to pay to make whatever statement he was trying to make. All I can say is, "Thanks, Obama, for giving us conservatives the rope with which to hang you!"
Whatever the reason Obama removed the flag pin, it was a big mistake to do it. He can talk all he wants to about showing his patriotism from the inside out, taking off the pin clearly reveals that Obama is uncomfortable with being American. It's like John Kerry claiming, in the '04 presidential campaign, to be a good Catholic while also insisting that he wouldn't wear his faith on his sleeve. Why not? If you're so religious, why would you be reluctant to show it? Likewise, if you're so patriotic, why would you be ashamed to flaunt it?
Of course, I understand that the wearing of symbols--flags, crosses, or whatever--can be a shallow and hypocritical ploy to get votes or win over public opinion, but it can also MEAN SOMETHING. It can reveal where someone's heart is truly at, where his allegiance truly lies.
Maybe Obama really is patriotic, but felt that would hurt his chances with the far-left crowd he apparently thinks he needs to win. So he dropped Old Glory to reassure that constituentcy that he's not TOO American. Or maybe the opposite is true. Maybe Obama is an anti-American American and dumped the flag because he was tired of not acting in sync with his true feelings.
I don't know what really motivated Obama to do what he did. I do know that his action won't help liberals repair their bad reputation on patriotism. Surely Obama knows that. I guess that was a price he was willing to pay to make whatever statement he was trying to make. All I can say is, "Thanks, Obama, for giving us conservatives the rope with which to hang you!"
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Finding the Truth in People Magazine
Sometimes the truth jumps out at you from places where you least expect it and it can be pretty jarring when it does. That's what happened to me today as I was browsing through the magazines in Walgreen's.
I'd picked up this week's--October 8--issue of People and was casually flipping through its pages when I came across a review for the movie "The Kingdom". Now you know that liberals always insist that they support the troops and act indignant when their patriotism is questioned. But often their true feelings slip out in spite of themselves, and that's what happened in People.
I haven't seen "The Kingdom" (TK), but it must really be a good movie because People's movie reviewer Leah Rozen gave it three out of four stars. However, she mixed some revealing criticism in with the praise. While calling TK "a gripping action-thriller", "smart", and "exciting", Rozen also complained that the movie had "a hyperheroic Hollywood...ending" and that it "pander[ed] to [Americans'] most jingoistic instincts". What was it about "The Kingdom" that so upset Rozen? Apparently, the movie was too pro-American. That's right.
In "The Kingdom" the Americans, at least the FBI team that's sent to Saudi Arabia, are the good guys, and they kick terrorist ass in a way that had the audience cheering, Rozen admits. That was too much for her. She must've been in a tizzy about how to review the movie. Intellectual honesty apparently forced Rozen to give "The Kingdom" a good rating, but she threw in her disclaimers as a sop to her liberal reading audience. It was as if she were saying, "Ok guys, I have to admit that "The Kingdom" is a good movie, but I want you to know that I didn't fall for all its pro-American stuff."
Rozen's review revealed the corrupt version of "patriotism" that prevails among today's liberals. Routing for America is "hyperheroic". Cheering when America destroys her enemies is "jingoism". For liberals such things are BIG no-nos. Therefore, since they can't route FOR America the only option left is to route AGAINST America, which liberals do with relish. Whether it's Harry Reid declaring the Iraq War lost, Cindy Sheehan calling America evil, or Sean Penn cozying up to America-hating dictator Hugo Chavez, liberals have declared war on their own nation. They consider their self-hatred and investment in defeat as a "sophisticated" form of patriotism. Real patriotism--loving America, defending her, routing for her to win--is disavowed as racist, militarist, imperialist or, as Rozen put it, jingoist. The truth slipped out. And you thought People printed only fluff.
I'd picked up this week's--October 8--issue of People and was casually flipping through its pages when I came across a review for the movie "The Kingdom". Now you know that liberals always insist that they support the troops and act indignant when their patriotism is questioned. But often their true feelings slip out in spite of themselves, and that's what happened in People.
I haven't seen "The Kingdom" (TK), but it must really be a good movie because People's movie reviewer Leah Rozen gave it three out of four stars. However, she mixed some revealing criticism in with the praise. While calling TK "a gripping action-thriller", "smart", and "exciting", Rozen also complained that the movie had "a hyperheroic Hollywood...ending" and that it "pander[ed] to [Americans'] most jingoistic instincts". What was it about "The Kingdom" that so upset Rozen? Apparently, the movie was too pro-American. That's right.
In "The Kingdom" the Americans, at least the FBI team that's sent to Saudi Arabia, are the good guys, and they kick terrorist ass in a way that had the audience cheering, Rozen admits. That was too much for her. She must've been in a tizzy about how to review the movie. Intellectual honesty apparently forced Rozen to give "The Kingdom" a good rating, but she threw in her disclaimers as a sop to her liberal reading audience. It was as if she were saying, "Ok guys, I have to admit that "The Kingdom" is a good movie, but I want you to know that I didn't fall for all its pro-American stuff."
Rozen's review revealed the corrupt version of "patriotism" that prevails among today's liberals. Routing for America is "hyperheroic". Cheering when America destroys her enemies is "jingoism". For liberals such things are BIG no-nos. Therefore, since they can't route FOR America the only option left is to route AGAINST America, which liberals do with relish. Whether it's Harry Reid declaring the Iraq War lost, Cindy Sheehan calling America evil, or Sean Penn cozying up to America-hating dictator Hugo Chavez, liberals have declared war on their own nation. They consider their self-hatred and investment in defeat as a "sophisticated" form of patriotism. Real patriotism--loving America, defending her, routing for her to win--is disavowed as racist, militarist, imperialist or, as Rozen put it, jingoist. The truth slipped out. And you thought People printed only fluff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)