RSSViews on the News – 1/23/2010
David Coughlin | January 23, 2010
Obama’s first year has been a case study in misreading why an election was won (the economy, stupid!), followed by another misreading of the public mood (jobs, jobs, jobs!) and then using the “never waste a good crisis” thinking to try to install Far Left, European-style socialism through the White House political and economic agenda. Voters were looking for “a President who can bring the country together, who can reach beyond partisanship, and who’ll be tough on special interests.” That was what we were promised, but what we got instead is a President who increased the divisions in our nation, the most partisan and polarizing figure in the history of polling, one who is dogmatic and has been as generous to special interests as any we have seen. The efforts to buy votes in pursuit of the Obama agenda have added sewage to the cesspool. In almost every regard, his actions and the actions of his administration have been disastrous for the long-term future of this country. Obama is pursuing policies that not only don’t help but exacerbate our problems and takes us down a wrong and even perilous path. There was a marked disconnect between what Obama said on the campaign trail and what Obama actually delivered as President:
· Rarely has a President been so out of touch with the people of this nation. While Americans are overwhelmingly concerned about high unemployment and enormous government deficits, Obama has chosen to focus upon his own political agenda.
· Obama promised us a new bi-partisan era. Obama abandoned any pretense of bi-partisanship the day he hired hyper-partisan Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff. Since then, he has made little effort to work with Republicans on any major legislation.
· Our first “post-racial” President was supposed to lead us to a new era. Instead he continues to emphasize racial differences instead of highlighting American common traits.
· Obama inherited a significant budget deficit that was growing because of necessary expenditures and reduced tax collections. The President intentionally then made this bad situation much worse by passing multiple earmark laden spending bills.
· President Obama has led the charge to have the federal government assume control of one-sixth of our economy through a nonsensical 2,000+ page bill whose ramifications NOBODY knows. What we do know is that there will be higher taxes and over 100 new boards and commissions to control our lives.
· The “Cap and Trade” environment control bill barely passed in the House and is stalled in the Senate. The EPA has stepped in to do what Congress appears unable to do – establish federal control over all decisions made by manufacturers and most other businesses.
· The President promised that his Administration would be the most transparent in history with bills posted on the Internet for all of us to review and Congressional meetings televised. These promises have been ignored and even gotten worse with time.
· Obama promised a better international image. Some countries may like us better, but he has clearly antagonized our closest allies (Britain and Israel) and pandered to dictators in North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela. He almost let a small friend (Honduras) be taken over by a Chavez front man and has left Colombia hanging out to dry to appease his union friends. China and Russia love him because they know that we have a weak President and they can act with impunity.
· For seven years after 9/11, the Bush Administration kept us safe, but now all hell is breaking loose. Obama’s tone of appeasement has set at the tone throughout the Administration and throughout the world who now view America as weak.
A year into his Presidency, Obama faces a polarized nation and souring public assessments of his efforts to change Washington, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. 62% of Americans now say the country has veered seriously off on to the wrong track, according to a new poll from the Washington Post and ABC News. 58% said they favor a smaller government with fewer services. Nearly half of all Americans say Obama is not delivering on his major campaign promises, and a narrow majority has just some or no confidence that he will make the right decisions for the country’s future. At the one year mark, Obama has effectively become a lame duck President with the upcoming November midterm elections forecasted to be a Democrat blood bath. He won on a message of “Change you can believe in,” but the first year is more “Revolution you can pay for.” God willing, Obama’s year two will be an improvement, because it cannot get much worse!
(“Poll shows growing disappointment, polarization over Obama’s performance” by Jon Cohen and Jennifer Agiesta dated January 17, 2010 published by The Washington Post at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/16/AR2010 011602828.html
“The Obama revolution Ends This Week” by John LeBoutillier dated January 17, 2010 published by News Max at http://newsmax.com/blogs/JohnLeboutillier/id-52
“The First Year: A Near Total Disaster” by Bruce Bialosky dated January 18, 2010 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/BruceBialosky/2010/01/18/the_first_year __a_near_total_disaster
“The Once-Appealing Barack Obama” by Pete Wehner dated January 18, 2010 published by Commentary Magazine at http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/218526 )
In a Presidency in which everything is murkier than Obama could have imagined, the “let me be clear” preface has become a signal that what follows will be anything but. Once Obama was elected, his “let be me clear” went from offense to defense, becoming a rebuttal on points where the facts were not that evident, and to his opponents, it became a sign of obfuscation or indecision to follow:
· “Now let me be clear — let me be absolutely clear, because I know you will end up hearing some of the same claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people. If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, a quarter-million dollars a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.” Since then, several proposals have muddied that assertion, including the Obama-approved tax on costly health insurance plans.
· “Let me be absolutely clear about what health reform means for you… It will keep government out of health-care decisions. It will give you the option to keep your insurance if you’re happy with it.” In fact, the government’s role in health care would increase under the legislation, and the changes would cause many people to end up with different coverage not of their own choosing.
· “So let it be clear, I am open to every demonstrably good idea, and I want to take every responsible step to accelerate job creation. We also, though, have to face the fact that our resources are limited.” He does realize that job creation is important, but it can’t cost too much and he would not entertain any ideas from Republicans.
· “Let me be clear: Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran’s neighbors and our allies. We will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven.” The administration announced that it was replacing the proposed long-range missile defenses for Poland and the Czech Republic, with a set of maritime-based defenses geared toward the short- and medium-range missile threat from Iran.
· “So let me be clear: Al-Qaeda and its allies… are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. We have a clear and focused goal to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.” But it turns out the plan was anything but clear, and the President spent months reevaluating his Afghanistan policy before deciding to add 30,000 troops in Afghanistan, but set a July 2011 timeline for premature withdrawal.
· “Now, let me be clear: None of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan.” In other words: Governing is messy and the world is cloudy.
Obama’s credibility has suffered as so many of his campaign promises have been broken, so now when he says “let me be clear” what follows is usually neither clear nor factual.
(“In Obama’s speeches, one favorite phrase: ‘Let me be clear’” by Alec MacGillis and Paul Farhi dated January 17, 2010 published by The Washington Post at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/14/AR2010 011403872.html )
President Obama has the worst budget record of any President in American history, and the effects of his ruinous policies can already be measured. Obama’s budget, coupled with the $787 billion stimulus slush fund, was the most irresponsible in history. The deficit as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product went from 3.1% in 2008 to 9.9% in 2009. The deficit for the first month of fiscal year 2010 was $176 billion, which was greater than the $161 billion deficit for the entire 2007 fiscal year. The 2009 spending plan calls for the national debt to double in five years and triple in ten years. Public debt as a percentage of GDP was an already-high 40.8% in 2008, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates this figure would more than double to 81.7% by 2019. The CBO projects a softening but still brisk increase in future debt based on reduced growth in government spending, which is highly unrealistic, and a trillion dollars in new taxes, which is frighteningly likely. People certainly have lost confidence in the President: a CNN poll from the second week in January showed that 62% of the public disapproves of Obama’s handling of the budget deficit, and 54% disapprove of his economic policies in general; in a January Quinnipiac poll, 53% said Obama is fiscally irresponsible; a Bloomberg poll from the first week of December showed that 60% believe that chronically high deficits constitute a high threat to economic performance, and 57% disapprove of Obama’s handling of the issue; and an October NBC News poll showed that 62% believed controlling the federal deficit was more important than boosting the economy. The Obama administration is an unmitigated economic disaster for this country, and most Americans are worried about that. The amount of debt owned by foreign countries is increasing, confidence in the dollar is dropping, gold prices are soaring, energy costs are rising, the trade deficit is widening and Obama’s first year Gallup approval rating has fallen faster than any President since records have been kept.
(“Obama is killing the economy” dated January 18, 2010 published by The Washington Times at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/18/obama-is-killing-the-e conomy/?feat=home_top5_read )
The depressing tendency toward governmental over-regulation, a fact of life at least since the New Deal, has gone into warp-speed with the new Washington crowd. This bunch recognizes no limits in telling business “owners” what they can produce, how much of it and when, with what kind of and how much energy, who they must hire, what they must pay employees and what conditions of employment they must provide. In left-wing circles it’s considered rude to suggest that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the merry majority in Washington today are socialists. What Obama and his legions are doing may not exactly be socialism, which is usually defined as government ownership of the means of production. However when you try to contrast socialism with what Obama and his crowd have put through and what they’re whooping up, if you seek to isolate real differences between socialism and Obamaism, it would be awfully hard. The Obama administration and its Congressional courtiers have put the federal government into the domestic car business in a big way. They’ve gotten “health care” legislation written that goes a long way toward nationalizing one-sixth of the economy, puts the national debt on steroids, and trying to sneak through “cap and trade” legislation, which would take decisions on how much and what kind of energy can be used in the economy from the private sector where they belong and turn them over to politicians and bureaucrats. “Cap and trade,” if enacted, would effectively Sovietize the United States with a command and control economy run out of Washington. Contemporary socialists have figured out that actually owning the means of production is a lot of trouble, and takes away valuable time that could be more (excuse the expression) profitably spent dominating the culture. Far easier to allow some poor sod to have his name on a title somewhere and think he owns the factory and just make all the important decisions for him. A better name may be soft-socialism, smart-socialism, or perhaps just lazy-socialism. Plus there’s the matter that people who own businesses often face losses. Better to take the profits in taxes and let the “owner” absorb the losses. As Obama and his merry band annex more and more of our personal and economic freedoms by putting more and more under the federal thumb, how much comfort can be taken by saying, “Well, at least it’s not exactly socialism?” since Socialism vs. Obamaism may be a distinction without a difference.
(“None Dare Call It Socialism” by Larry Thornberry dated January 18, 2010 published by The American Spectator at http://spectator.org/archives/2010/01/18/none-dare-call-it-socialism )
The President was actually correct when he observed that the economic problems from which we suffer were long in the making and cannot be fixed overnight since our problems are for the most part rooted in the many years of liberal/leftists policies, which, sadly, have been practiced by both parties. They also happen to be the same policies that President Obama has relentlessly pursued since the first day of his Presidency. They include government expansion, reckless borrowing, unsustainably low interest rates, heavy regulation and federal intrusion into every part of our lives. However the American economy has always possessed an inner resilience that time and again made it possible to shake off blows inflicted by the political class. Since the recession began in December 2007, Congress has passed two stimulus packages ($168 billion in February 2008 and $787 billion in February 2009), and last month the House passed a $154 billion jobs bill. The economy has been growing for more than six months, but job creation remains sluggish. Today’s unemployment rate is 10%; the underemployment rate – the unemployed, plus those employed part time, plus those discouraged persons who have stopped looking for jobs – is 17.3%. From December 2008 to December 2009, total employment fell from 135.1 million persons to 130.9 million, while government employment remained essentially constant at 22.5 million. Almost 40% of the unemployed have been so for seven months or more which is not surprising: Congress continues to extend eligibility for unemployment benefits, apparently oblivious to the truth that when you subsidize something you get more of it. With Washington experiencing prolonged hyperkinesis, businesspeople are paralyzed by uncertainty about what the rules and costs of commerce will eventually be. It is no wonder that high unemployment is predicted to continue and is even suggested to be the “new normal.” Government propaganda notwithstanding, this nation can only be saved through revival of the private sector, since the private sector is the only institution that can create real jobs and real wealth. Government is the last place we should look to for recovery, because in the final analysis government can only smother, pilfer and waste but this truth seems to have been forgotten as a nation.
(“No Rational Exuberance” by George F. Will dated January 15, 2010 published by Newsweek Magazine at http://www.newsweek.com/id/231124
“Comrades’ Way” by Vasko Kohlmayer dated January 20, 2010 published by Front Page Magazine at http://frontpagemag.com/2010/01/20/comrades-way/
“The Disappearing Private-Sector Jobs” dated January 20, 2010 published by Investor’s Business Daily at http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=518614 )
The Marxists in the Obama administration view corporate profits as the enemy that must be eliminated by the high priests of government in their class warfare attack on the free market. The President announced a proposal to tax banking profits and executive compensation that he declared “obscene.” Despite the notorious legal difficulty in identifying behaviors eligible for this “obscene” adjective, our chief executive apparently knows it when he sees it. Before even examining the premise of the unworthiness of profit, we should roundly reject the idea of expressing disapproval via taxation. It is one thing to levy a fine for a violation. To tax the proceeds of legal commerce punitively is to turn the revenue collector into a prosecutor. If a legislature deems an activity to be illicit, it has the power to forbid. His plan is to extract $90 billion in a special tax for 10 years from the 50 largest banks, ostensibly to make them pay for the amount the government expects to lose from the Trouble Asset Relief Program (TARP). This “fee” is really a thinly disguised attempt to tap a new revenue source to pay for some of the massive deficits caused by the Obama Administration’s spending programs. By taking extra money for the Treasury while allowing this activity, it is practicing extortion and facilitating a bribe from citizen to government. The government regulators have sold us on the contrary notion that our industriousness is vice and their imperiousness is virtue. Speaking of political unfairness and favoritism, mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will not pay a nickel of this tax, while AIG is taxed. These government-sponsored enterprises were at the very center of the financial maelstrom, financing the government’s quotas and targets for unaffordable mortgages, but are exempted. This fee also does not apply to the entities that caused TARP’s bailout losses: GM and Chrysler. President Obama’s misbegotten bank tax is precisely the wrong policy at precisely the wrong time. It will wind up backfiring, because bank consumers and borrowers are the ones who will wind up paying this tax, creating an obstacle to economic recovery. It is the private sector “profiteers” who benefit society far more than these public sector quasi-regulators. President Obama is engaging in left-wing, class-warfare politics, and it is one more reason why the Democrats are going to get clobbered at the polls this November.
(“False Profiteering” by Jay D. Homnick dated January 15, 2010 published by The American Spectator at http://spectator.org/archives/2010/01/15/false-propheteering
“Obama Rewards Losers, Punishes Winners” by Larry Kudlow dated January 15, 2010 published by National Review Online at http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTMwMDlhNmJhMTk4ZTk1YjkwYzZmOGVhY WM2ZGU5ZTM=
“Obama’s Bank Shot” by Peter Hannaford dated January 19, 2010 published by Human Events at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35236
“Obama’s ‘Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee’: Not Responsible, Not a Fee” by David C. John dated January 21, 2010 published by The Heritage Foundation at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2770.cfm )
The President is proposing an Executive Commission on Debt Reduction that is charged with making excess spending cuts recommendations right after this year’s mid-term elections. This Commission would be composed of 16 members of Congress (four each selected by the House speaker and minority leader, and the Senate majority and minority leaders) plus the Treasury secretary and someone the President selects. The menu of proposals would be guaranteed an up-or-down vote with no amendments permitted in both houses of Congress. If most commission members agree on a plan, Congress would have to take mandatory votes before Christmas on the commission’s recommendations, which are all but certain to be politically toxic solutions to raise taxes, cut spending or change benefit terms for popular programs such as Social Security. There are two objections, and each is sufficient, to the task force: one is procedural and the other is substantive.
· Regarding procedure, the White House has been talking to Congress to try to craft a proposal that would not wholly relinquish Congressional control over major decisions on taxes and spending. The oath of office for representatives and senators does not commit them to partially or occasionally or when convenient “support and defend,” and bear “true faith and allegiance” to, the Constitution and “faithfully discharge the duties” of their offices.
· Substantively, the task force would be a means of conscripting Republican participation in huge tax increases. Were the Commission to come to a consensus, it almost certainly would be that Congress must make the supposedly “difficult choice” of spending more of other people’s money.
Year one of the Obama administration was devoted to deliberately exacerbating the fiscal crisis. The Obama Administration is desperate to lash as many Republicans as possible to their tax increases that are required to pay for all the Democrat runaway spending. The gusher of spending, combined with the new multi-trillion-dollar health care entitlement, is half of liberalism’s plan to radically and permanently increase government’s grasp on the nation’s wealth, and now this task force would produce the other half raising the taxes to pay for everything.
(“Off-the-Cliff, But Catching On” by George Will dated January 17, 2010 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2010/01/17/off-the-cliff,_bu t_catching_on
“A commission to tackle out-of-control spending?” by David Lightman dated January 17, 2010 published by McClatchy at http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/82490.html
“The Debt Reduction Commission: Another Gergen-Shields Show” by Ken Blackwell dated January 22, 2010 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/the_debt_reduction_commission_a nother_gergen-shields_show.html )
Obama’s and Democrats’ forgiveness of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s “inartful” remarks reveals the deep-seated racism that informs the President’s every policy and pronouncement and threatens to turn the United States into a 21st-century version of pre-Civil Rights America. The racist bias of the current administration cuts both ways. The fact that our President accepted Reid’s apology as if he (Obama) were the only one damaged by Reid’s remarks speaks to two things: the President’s own narcissism and the fact that he agrees with the underlying racist premise that speaking with a “Negro dialect” is negative. By appointing a racist as his Attorney General, Obama effectively cemented history’s judgment of his administration’s racialist policies. Eric Holder has shown that when it’s politically convenient for him to support blacks, he’ll subvert the law to do so, as he did in dismissing the prosecution of members of the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation on election day 2008 in Philadelphia. Holder tacitly condoned behavior equivalent to that of Bull Connor’s brownshirts by dropping prosecution of members of the New Black Panther Party when they brandished weapons and shouted insults at white voters, intimidating them in a way similar to that of Connor’s thugs 45 years earlier. The difference is not in the degree of the offenses committed, but in the fact that, when committed against whites, the offense doesn’t lead to punishment. Reid, Holder, and Obama all cling to deeply racist convictions, not only in branding those who disagree politically with them as racist, but also in their own attitudes toward African-Americans, whom they implicitly see as inferior to whites and “light-skinned” blacks. Their selective condemnation of “racism” by their opponents is deeply disturbing because it reveals, without their apparently being aware of it, that they themselves harbor the same racist convictions as those they excoriate for being racist. It won’t be long, certainly by November of this year at the latest, before the administration’s rampant racism becomes another of the reasons American voters drum Democrats out of office in droves.
(“The Obama Administration’s Rampant Racism” by Greg Lewis dated January 20, 2010 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/the_obama_administrations_ramp. html )
There are some key messages that all Americans can take away from the Massachusetts election that will apply to our nation’s political future. The central battle in our time is the political competition between the public sector and the private sector over who defines the work and the institutions that make a nation thrive and grow. The states in the North and on the coasts turned blue because blue is the color of the public-sector unions and the key messages revolve around government size and role. There were some key lessons to be learned from the Massachusetts election:
· Authenticity trumps rhetoric any time, especially now. Americans are seeing through political spin and elitist rhetoric. Americans see through the far left policies advocated by Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, and they soundly reject them.
· You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not most of the people all the time. Trust is an essential factor for political credibility; once it is gone, it is virtually impossible to regain. Obama squandered the public’s trust to the point where his poll numbers are notoriously low and even a Huffington Post columnist is cynical about him.
· America remains, essentially, a moral nation. While political correctness is pervasive throughout American culture and people want to “live and let live,” the Judeo-Christian values of honesty, keeping your promises, respect and equality for all, and the rejection of corruption are foundational for most Americans’ belief systems.
· Ballots matter more than demonstrations, petitions, community organizing or media commentary. The Massachusetts election of 2010 proves that impassioned resistance to ObamaCare and runaway spending and the inexorable growth in government represents a powerful movement that promises to upend all conventional political calculations. Public opinion polling, and big turnouts for rallies and protests, send the message that ordinary Americans feel angry and resentful about the direction of Obama and the Democrats in Congress.
· With huge issues at stake, feuding conservatives can put aside their differences and make common cause. Independents have moved decisively away from support for the Obama agenda: ObamaCare, stimulus spending, cap-and-tax, suicidal deficits and other abominations. Obama’s menacing, radical leadership achieved something that no Republican leader since Reagan has managed to accomplish: uniting conservatives and moderates, Republicans and independents, in opposition to the frightening Democratic agenda.
· Third party bids amount to nothing more than embarrassing, destructive distractions. When conservatives and other Obama opponents realized that Scott Brown offered a real chance of victory, Independent candidate, Joe Kennedy’s support quickly melted away. The only real influence of third party eccentrics is to defeat the candidates with whom they most closely agree by drawing votes away from a conservative (or liberal) oriented coalition.
· Elections are ultimately about sending messages, more than they depend on personality or political tactics. The results of high profile, furiously fought campaigns usually reflect the deep-seated sentiments of the electorate far more than they stem from candidate charisma or effective get-out-the-vote efforts. The message from the voters is that the public has not developed a fervent new love affair with the GOP but rather that they loathe the reckless spending and ongoing corruption exemplified by Obama, Pelosi and Reid.
· Voter indifference is beginning to change. There is a resurgence of conservatism, as evidenced by the TEA Party movement. This multi-faceted coalition that makes up the grassroots resistance to the radical Obama agenda comprises those opposed to illegal immigration, amnesty, excessive government spending, abortion, gay marriage, taxes, gun control, heath care reform, free trade, foreign entanglements, Wall Street, and those who want to hang every politician.
Interesting that both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama traveled to Massachusetts to campaign for Martha Coakley and together they could not deliver sufficient voters for her to win the election. Voters no longer trust the Democrat party to represent their interests in Congress, but last election showed voters didn’t trust the Republicans either. The TEA Party movement, instead of reveling in its declared independence, is beginning to join forces with or take over the local Republican Party establishment in its respective county or state. This myth was disproven in Massachusetts where TEA Party populists and angry conservatives worked with moderates and the Republican hierarchy to elect Scott Brown. Now the big challenge is to articulate a platform for change that will mark the mainline GOP as the “alternative party, not the opposition party” of ideas that represents the voters’ interests! The overarching message from the Massachusetts victory was “Hell No, we won’t go!” to Barack Obama’s triumphant march to socialism.
(“Messages from Massachusetts: The Meaning of Scott Brown” by Michael Medved dated January 20, 2010 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2010/01/20/messages_from_ massachusetts_the_meaning_of_scott_brown
“The Coming Democrat Counteroffensive” by Steve McCann dated January 20, 2010 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/the_coming_democrat_counteroff. html
“The Fall of the House of Kennedy” by Daniel Henninger dated January 21, 2010 published by The Wall Street Journal at http://online.wsj.com/article/wonder_land.html
“Brown’s Victory and Obama’s Agenda” by Janice Shaw Crouse dated January 22, 2010 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/browns_victory_and_obamas_agen. html
“The Brown Effect” by Fred Barnes dated February 1, 2010 published by The Weekly Standard at http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/brown-effect )
* There is so much published each week that unless you search for it, you will miss important breaking news. I try to package the best of this information into my “Views on the News” each Saturday morning. Individual issue updates this week include:
· Civil Rights at http://returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/civilrights.php
· Employment at http://returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/employment.php
· Defense at http://returntocommonsensesite.com/fp/defense.php
David Coughlin
Hawthorne, NY
www.returntocommonsensesite.com
Contributor's website: http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com
Content posted by users from other sites is posted for commentary and news purposes under fair use and each author is responsible for their own postings and a particular posting should not be construed as being endorsed by this site or its owner.
Leave a Reply
Loading ...Recommended Reading:
