Dec
24
2015
0

The #ExecutiveOrder/#ExecutiveAction Double-Edge Sword

Gov. Matt Bevin is giving The Left a lesson in the double-edge nature of executive orders and the rule-of-law:

Kentucky’s newly sworn-in Gov. Matt Bevin has issued a series of executive orders undoing much of his Democratic predecessor’s work in one fell swoop.

Not only did Bevin strip the voting rights of some 140,000 former felons, he also reduced the minimum wage for some state employees from $10.10 per hour back to $7.25, Think Progress reported. …

Though Bevin’s predecessor, Steve Beshear, didn’t restore the voting rights to violent felons, Bevin said he doesn’t support Beshear’s use of an executive order to achieve that end. “While I have been a vocal supporter of the restoration of rights,” Bevin said in a prepared statement to the Lexington Herald Leader. “it is an issue that must be addressed through the legislature and by the will of the people.”

Of course, liberals are losing their minds over Gov. Matt Bevin upholding the rule of law. They’re basically jumping up and down saying that you can not undo an executive order. You can read all of that here, because I am too lazy to link them all.

I would like to note that yes, yes you can undo an executive order. These are not laws and are subject to the whim of executive branch. As the Wall Street Journal notes, President Obama’s executive orders/executive actions may not last long:

The Obama legacy is built on executive orders, regulations and agency actions that can be overturned using the same authority Mr. Obama employed to put them in place.

An array of President Obama’s policies – changing immigration law, blocking the Keystone XL pipeline, the Iranian nuclear agreement and the normalization of relations with Cuba, among others – were implemented exclusively through executive action. Because any president is free “to revoke, modify or supersede his own orders or those issued by a predecessor,” as the Congressional Research Service puts it, a Republican president could overturn every Obama executive action the moment after taking the oath of office.

Since Donald Trump is the Republican front runner, would he undo those four policies?

It goes without saying that a President Trump would undo President Obama’s executive orders/executive actions on immigration. I do not have to give you examples.

A President Trump would be very supportive of the Keystone XL Pipeline: “If I am elected President I will immediately approve the Keystone XL pipeline. No impact on environment & lots of jobs for U.S.”

From what I have heard, Trump is not a fan of the Iran Deal.

And to top everything off, Trump would take a hardline on Cuba.

There is talk on new executive orders by Obama on Gun Control. Trump is having none of it.

Rule by fiat is fleeting. I, for one, appreciate this life lesson from Gov. Matt Bevin and I hope you do too. This is also a warning to Republican Presidents/Governors as well.

Well, see ya’ later!
(more…)

Oct
29
2015
2

#KosKids: The #AssaultAtSpringValleyHigh Edition

I like to start a feature where I take a look at the distorted views of the clinically insane. Or more commonly known to us on the right-side of the blogosphere, as the KosKids. They are the dedicated and brain-dead followers of Markos Moulitsas, and they have bought some prime real estate at the bottom of the rabbit hole. This feature will take a look at how far down they have gone. I am going to link them, but I beg you don’t click on them.

Today, we are going to take on “Assault At Spring Valley High” here. Officer Ben Fields has been fired already, so we can’t save him. However we are going to look at insanity coming out of Daily Kos.

South Carolina teen violently arrested in viral video was recently orphaned and entered foster care

This Kos Kid, Jen Hayden, here thinks that the fact the 16-year-old was a foster care somehow excuses this girl’s awful behavior. Your sob story does not excuse you from a lawful order from a police officer. I’m sorry that you’re foster care, but that doesn’t give you free license to be a fucktard.

The Truth about the Spring Valley “Officer Slam” Assault on a Teen Girl

Kos Kid, Frank Vyan Walton, admits that this girl refused the orders to leave the classroom from a teacher and a school administrator. But that’s no reason to arrest her, this Kos Kid argues. Except, it is. In South Carolina, you can be arrested for disrupting the classroom and disobeying a order to leave the classroom.

I agree with Tommy Sotomayor here:

However I am almost ready to go one step further than Sotomayor in calling for a general police strike. I mean, politicians don’t have your backs and won’t stick up for you. You will be fired and threaten with imprisonment FOR DOING YOUR JOB! Why put your neck on the line for ungrateful public and leaders to quickly throw you under the bus?

Now is clearly not the time. Still, it won’t be bad idea to look for other work. Go to school part-time and learn a new vocation. It is not worth throwing your lives away to people who don’t like or respect you. Walk away as soon as you can.

Well, see ya’ later!
(more…)

Sep
04
2015
2

#KimDavis: Putting An Anti-#RuleOfLaw Democrat In Jail Is Always A Good Idea

Note: This is not an endorsement of SSM or the Supreme Court’s ruling. The SCOTUS can be over-ruled with a constitutional amendment. This is about the Rule Of Law and fulfilling your duties as a civil servant.

I have been sitting on the sidelines on this subject, mainly because I didn’t have all the facts.

So a Republican appointed judge throws a self-serving elected Democrat official, who is taking the law into their own hands, into jail. Seems fair enough. Oh, I am not talking about President Obama. I am, of course, talking about Kentucky’s own Kim Davis:

But Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, whom U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning found in contempt of court, said through her lawyers that she will not authorize any of her employees to issue (SSM) licenses in her absence. The judge placed her in the custody of U.S. marshals and had her taken to Carter County jail…

She should be taken to Rowan County jail, but I digress.

This is not a case of Religious Freedom or Religious Liberty. No one is telling her give up her beliefs or endorsing SSM, all she has to do is witness. Matthew Arildsen at The Federalist breaks it down:

Thankfully, an evil empire and moral purity were precisely the concerns of first-century Christians as they wrestled with living in extensively pagan societies with tyrannical militaries. One ethical conundrum of the day was: is it permissible to eat food sacrificed to idols? In 1 Corinthians 10:25-[28], Paul lays out the righteous path: “Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience’ sake; for the earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains. If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience’ sake.”

Money spent on food sacrificed to idols ended up funding the pagan temple system one way or another. Paul is unfazed. Like Jesus insisting that we should give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and pay our taxes, Paul shows that the evil actions of the other participants do not preclude the narrowly righteous action of the Christian. The reasoning is, buying food is just buying food; buying food isn’t wrong; what people do with the money does not contribute to your sin. …

The clarity of this logic helps us draw bright lines for Christian conduct in this less extreme but very important situation. Baking a cake is not evil. Telling someone that gay marriage is great is evil. Photographing a wedding is not evil. Implicitly endorsing public sin is evil. Signing a certificate as the government’s witness for the validity of the legal document saying two parties are married according to the state is not evil. Signing a certificate that certifies that all signatories endorse the government’s definition of marriage is evil.

So in the case of a cake for a gay wedding or being a witness on a slip of paper, it makes sense to analyze the act itself. It’s not wrong to give people a beautiful cake. It’s wrong to encourage people to do evil things. If you make your views and the company’s views clear, you can feel free to make that cake. If they want it to say “Congratulations Angela and Norma!” you may feel morally free to do as they wish. As long as they know that you are merely serving their own self-congratulations and are not participating in congratulating, your conscience can be clear.

Similarly, it is moral for a Christian clerk to issue the morally invalid marriage licenses that include gay marriages, as long as the state does not coerce the clerk into offering congratulations to the couple. Your function as a witness to the state and couple’s sin may be painful, but the angst of seeing neighbors fall deeper and deeper into sin should not be confused with the angst of personal moral guilt.

I highly recommend the whole article. It is actually two writers and two different op-eds. I know it is almost two months old, but I have kept it in my pocket until now.

What Matthew Arildsen is saying that endorsing (not voluntary economic participation) a sin is a sin as well.

Does this apply to the Hobby Lobby owners? No, buying health insurance used to be a “voluntary economic participation” and used to be able to pick and choose their own health coverage. With ObamaCare, it has become a forceful economic participation. As like the Military Draft, there must be a clear-cut conscientious objector status. Same with the cake maker and photographer, or anyone for any one thing.

Here, let us keep things simple:

The First Amendment says government is not entitled to your church or religious beliefs. Signing what amounts to a worthless piece of paper, or baking a cake, or taking a photo, is not a sin unto itself.

The Fifth Amendment and Thirteenth Amendment says no one is entitled to your labor, except to the state as punishment for a crime. Forcing you to buy anything, or to bake a cake, or to take a photo, for any reason is outright slavery and is wrong.

Kim Davis is wrong on every level. Since no one is telling her to give up her church and religious beliefs, her First Amendment rights are not being violated. As long as Kim Davis or any other county clerk or government official who has a problem with issuing same-sex marriage licenses can resign, then they are not a slave.

To those Democrats who support President Obama’s “Executive Amnesty” and not Kim Davis, then you are a bunch of awful bloody hypocrites. The “Rule Of Law” doesn’t matter to you in the slightest. Don’t start crying about it now.

And to my fellow “Rule Of Law” Republicans, don’t be so quick to come to Kim Davis’ defense. Kim Davis is one of those awful “take-the-law-into-their-own-hands” Democrats and shouldn’t be thanked nor should we start the beatification process yet.

Well, see ya’ later!
(more…)

Jul
26
2015
0

I’m Of Two Minds On #JonathanPollard Release

A lot of news about the possible release of spy Jonathan Pollard. I want to point out that I have been reading up on Pollard while writing this post and I am sick to my stomach at what this man did. He was a spy and violated his plea deal many times. I don’t care if Pollard was spying for Canada, UK, or the Klingon High Council, you get caught and you do the time.

I want to state for the record that I think it is unlikely that Jonathan Pollard is being released now because of any event. If anything, President Barack Obama would want to again thwart Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who has been trying to get Pollard released since forever.

Laws at the time of Pollard’s sentencing mandated parole after 30 years for federal life-sentence. It just so happens that those thirty years are up. Parole should only be denied Pollard if he had violated significant prison regulations or a “reasonable probability” of recidivism. Personally, I like to see him rot forever in jail. But on the gripping hand we are a nation of laws. I don’t know if Jonathan Pollard has been a model prisoner, but the actual chance of recidivism is anywhere from nil to zero.

I say we let the parole hearing take place and, if he qualifies, let him serve out his parole in Israel. I am sure we can work things out so Jonathan Pollard never leaves Israel. No clemency or pardons, but let the natural legal system work its course. To be brutally honest, I do not see him as a further threat. He has been in jail for thirty years and any info he may have memorize is out-of-date. We have bigger fish to fry than Pollard. He’ll be seen as a national hero in Israel for all of five minutes, because even Israel has bigger fish to fry.

We don’t have to like or respect Jonathan Pollard. We don’t even have to live with Pollard, FedEx his ass to Israel to serve out his parole and let them deal with him.

Well, see ya’ later!
(more…)

Written by BigGator5 in: Politics | Tags: , , , ,
Jul
07
2015
0

#SanctuaryCity Policies Need To End

There is a big hoopla going on right now with Donald Trump’s comments. I am not going to link them or comment much on them, other than to say it was just populist nonsense. And you know how I fucking hate populism. Populism is just red meat talking points that feed emotions with no real policy behind them. Now if Trump had come out with a policy, something that I can get behind, like “Let’s End Sanctuary Cities” for example…

The shit, as they say, has hit the fan:

The killing of a woman at a sightseeing pier has brought criticism down on this liberal city because the Mexican man under arrest was in the U.S. illegally, had been deported five times and was out on the streets after San Francisco officials disregarded a request from immigration authorities to keep him locked up.

San Francisco is one of dozens of cities and counties across the country that do not fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities. The city goes so far as to promote itself as a “sanctuary” for people in the country illegally.

In a jailhouse interview with a TV station, Francisco Sanchez, the 45-year-old repeat drug offender arrested in the shooting Wednesday of Kathryn Steinle, appeared to confirm that he came to the city because of its status as a sanctuary.

What is a “Sanctuary City” anyway? A “Sanctuary City” is a term given to a city in the United States or Canada that follows certain practices that protect Illegal immigration. These practices can be by law (de jure) or they can be by habit (de facto).

Of course, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is not happy about any of this:

“We’re not asking local law enforcement to do our job,” ICE spokeswoman Gillian Christensen said in the statement. “All we’re asking is that they notify us when a serious foreign national criminal offender is being released to the street so we can arrange to take custody.”

…Christensen said the bottom line is that if San Francisco authorities “had merely NOTIFIED ICE that they were about to release this individual into the community, ICE could have taken custody of him and had him removed from the country — thus preventing this terrible tragedy.”

The city did not notify ICE, she said, and, “As a result, an individual with a lengthy criminal history, who is now the suspect in a tragic murder case, was released onto the street rather than being turned over to ICE for deportation.”

I hate to use poor Kathryn Steinle’s death to push policy, but we need a national conversation on this subject and what better time than now. Right? RIGHT?!

The thing we need to talk about is that if Federal Law trumps State/Local Laws with regard to immigration, then why are we not challenging Sanctuary City laws/policy based off that “Arizona v. United States”/”Obergefell_v._Hodges” ruling? Please tell me where I am going wrong here. The first GOP candidate who wants to challenge Sanctuary Cities based off those rulings, will then have to put Democrats on the spot to support or denounce those court cases. If Liberals and Progressives are going to go after local laws and make a federal case out of them, then we should do the same. Sanctuary City policies are just a basic form of amnesty and if we are serious about the rule of law, then we need to meet them head on.

It is also one thing to let people mind their own business and another to just let a known deported illegal immigrant and violent multiple felon back onto American streets. It is RECKLESS and Kathryn Steinle paid for it with her life! San Francisco is in the wrong here and I hope Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi has nightmares about Francisco Sanchez MURDERING Kathryn Steinle for the rest of his natural life!

Well, see ya’ later!
(more…)

Jun
25
2015
1

#AbortionDrone Is Now A Thing

I am disgusted beyond words. I can’t link to any article about this story, because they all disgustingly approve of this utter nonsense.

Basically, Poland is a pro-life nation. It has abortion only in the case of rape/incest or the when the life of the mother is threaten. That seems fair to me. However Feminists and SJWs are not happy about this, because anything less than unlimited genocide of the next generation is consider wrong for some reason. So a pro-abortion group “Women On Waves” says “fuck Poland’s natural sovereignty” and is sending, from Germany, outlawed drugs into Poland using drones. I am sure Germany wouldn’t like people in Poland breaking German laws. So much for the rule-of-law in Europe.

Well, see ya’ later!
(more…)

Apr
27
2015
0

The #USConstitution Isn’t The Problem…

I hate this, but this might be a short post. However I don’t think I can adequately express how much of a bad idea this is in 140 characters. I will just write whatever and to hell with my high standards for a blog post.

I came across this Free Beacon article and I want to share with you the “Grassroots” can be equally as dumb:

Ever since Rick Santelli’s rant heard round the world millions of Americans have searched for a way to limit the federal government and restrain its spending habits.

So what is their solution? Why, call an Article V Constitutional Convention of course! I don’t know where to begin on how dumb this idea. So I will let Matthew Spalding help me out and I will break the three points down:

Not everybody believes a convention of states is possible or a good idea. Matthew Spalding, the Associate Vice President and Dean of Educational Programs for Hillsdale College who previously served as the Vice President of American Studies at the Heritage Foundation, has testified alongside Ferris in front of several state committees on the issue. He said he is skeptical of the group’s ability to call a convention, its ability to successfully pass a coherent amendment, and the wisdom of trying to do so.

First, we need to have 3/4ths of the States (right now, 38 of them) to agree to a convention.

Second, not all of the States are going to agree to narrow scope of the convention. So if one is formed, it is going to have a board scope. Incoherent and/or long amendments full of loop-holes are going to be the result. I rather have good, straight-to-the-point amendments than just to have something.

Third, let me turn to David Limbaugh to distill the wisdom of Article V Constitutional Convention at this time:

I understand the frustration conservatives feel about the federal government’s virtually unchecked growth over the past 75 years and how this is destroying our liberties and bankrupting our nation. But the Constitution isn’t the problem. Rewriting it isn’t the solution.

Proponents of a constitutional convention might protest that their goals are far more modest than a new Constitution. Well, so were the framers’ plans when they met in Philadelphia to amend the Articles of Confederation.

…We can certainly support tweaking the Constitution through limited amendments, but a convention would open the floodgates to the nefarious devices of what Ann Coulter … describes as “the mob.”

I also want to address the idea that “the other amendment process is way too slow” or something to that effect. The US Constitution is 227-years-old (it was ratified in 1788) and we have 27 Amendments. That is actually about one amendment for every 8.4 years. It is not like we can’t pass amendments or that we haven’t done them often.

The U.S. Constitution isn’t the problem, it is the bloated out of control government that more than half the time doesn’t seem to obey it. Using a Constitutional Convention is like take using the Jaws Of Life to remove a splitter, it is completely unnecessary and overkill. I don’t like the 16th or 17th Amendments, but if the 18th Amendment can be repealed, so can those two amendments. It just takes political will.

Well, see ya’ later!
(more…)

Apr
14
2015
0

Why #Cuba *SHOULD* Be On The #StateSponsoredTerrorism List

President Barack Obama is on the verge of making one of the biggest mistakes of the 21st Century (the other one is the Iran Deal, but that is for another day), taking Cuba off the State Sponsors Of Terrorism.

Ben Domenech underscores how Cuba is giving up nothing for normalization:

What does the United States get in return for this overture? Do we get normalization of the status of Guantanamo? Do we get our fugitives back so they can face justice? Does Cuba apologize for any of its support for terrorism? Does Cuba have to render justice or accountability for shooting down American civilian aircraft in international airspace, as it did in 1996? Do meaningful numbers of Cuban political prisoners get released? Does Cuban social and political repression ease one iota? Does Cuban support for radicalism and violence abroad cease? Does the Cuban communist grip on power and society relax even slightly? Does America receive Cuban support or even neutrality on any issue over which Cuba was previously opposed? Does Cuba concede a single item of strategic value or tactical value?

The answer to every single one of these questions is the same: no.

No! Nothing! Ben Domenech didn’t mention the almost $7 Billion worth (after inflation) of property stolen from US citizens and companies! According the to the 1996 Helms-Burton Act:

…the US cannot lift the embargo until both governments agree to settle the more than 5,900 claims the US Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (an arm of the Justice Department) recognizes against Cuba stemming from the expropriation of property owned by Americans following the Cuban revolution.

But I digress. All you will get from the MSM is that there is “no reason” that Cuba should be on the State Sponsored Terrorism List. I call bullshit on that claim, because a quick search on the web revealed a great archive on Cuba’s Terrorism.

Not only are the Castro Brothers a thugocracy to their own people, they have been exporting their brand of violence to the rest of the world:

When it first came to power, the Castro regime had its own theory of how to spread revolution: to reproduce elsewhere the rural-based guerrilla warfare experience of Castro’s 26th of July Movement in Cuba. In Che Guevara’s words, the Andes would become the Sierra Maestra of South America.

Initial attempts to repeat Cuba’s revolution elsewhere failed decisively. During the late 1960s, the Castro regime gradually reined in its zealots. Without abandoning its ideology or its ties to radical states and movements, Cuba began to pursue normal government-to-government relations in the hemisphere. By the mid-1970s Cuba’s isolation in the Americas eased, and full diplomatic or consular relations were reestablished with a number of countries.

But diplomacy proved unable to satisfy the Castro government’s ambitions. First in Africa and now in Latin America and the Caribbean, Cuba’s policy has again shifted to reemphasize intervention.

On July 26, 1980, Fidel Castro declared that the experiences of Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile, and Bolivia teach us that there is no other way than revolution, that there is no other “formula” than “revolutionary armed struggle.” Castro’s statement was an attempt to justify publicly what Cuban agents had been doing secretly since 1978: stepping up support for armed insurgency in neighboring countries.

These groups include, but not limited to, the following:

LASO – Latin American Solidarity Organization – A Cuban controlled organization founded during the 1966 Tri-Continental Conference in Havana to “coordinate and foment the fight against North American imperialism.”

M-19 – Movimiento 19 de Abril – A Castro supported group formed in 1974 to disrupt Colombia’s government through acts of terrorism and violence. The M-19 was very active throughout the 1980s receiving assistance and training from the Montoneros and Tupamaros groups and the Cuban government, causing Colombia to temporarily sever diplomatic relations with Cuba.

MACHETEROS – This terrorist organization is composed of four Puerto Rican groups: 1) the Macheteros, 2) the Ejercito Popular Boracua (EPB), 3) the Movimiento Popular Revolucionario, and 4) the Partido Revolucionario de Trabajadores Puertorriquenos. Most of the Macheteros have been trained in Cuba, were they have established relations with other terrorist groups. They are responsible for several terrorist acts within the United States and throughout Puerto Rico.

IRA – Irish Republican Army – The IRA is the most dangerous terrorist organization of Northern Ireland dating back to the early 1920s. Although, it wasn’t until the 1970’s when the IRA began terrorist actions and resurrected the historical conflicts. The IRA targets political transformation for United Ireland by eliminating Britain from Northern Ireland and replacing the government of Northern Ireland with a socialist government. Its Latin American headquarters are in Havana.

So you see, the Castro Brothers not only supported terrorism in the Western Hemisphere, but against Europe as well. Does Europe really want to expose themselves to Castro Terrorism again?

To top everything off, Castro Brothers are harboring a host of criminal fugitives:

They include members of a violent Spanish separatist movement, the Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA), which the State Department estimates has killed more than 800 people since the 1960s.

Cuba has also provided safe haven to members of the Colombian guerrilla army known as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, which has been waging a civil war with the Colombian government since the 1960s.

In addition, Cuba is providing refuge for dozens of U.S. fugitives, including one of the FBI’s most wanted terrorists – Joanne Chesimard, a member of the Black Liberation Army. She shot and killed a New Jersey State Police trooper execution-style in 1973. She received a life sentence but escaped prison and made her way to Cuba.

“It is essential to recognize that the Castro regime has a long track record of providing sanctuary to terrorists and harboring U.S. fugitives who have murdered American citizens, while undermining national security,” Sen. Bob Menendez*, D-N.J., wrote in a Feb. 26 letter to Secretary of State John Kerry. “Before Cuba is removed from (the list), the Castro regime must be held to account for these acts and American fugitives must be brought back to face justice in the U.S.”

“I think the Obama administration has already made a political decision to remove Cuba from the list,” said Mauricio Claver-Carone, executive director of the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, which opposed Obama’s decision to re-establish diplomatic ties with Cuba. “But if the assessment is made on facts and law, it’s very difficult to remove them.”

Indeed. But the Obama Administration has thumb their nose at the rule of law before, so no big surprise there.

So there you go. There is a reason why Cuba is on the State Sponsored Terrorism List and they are completely unrepentant of the matter. They should be on that list. You do not need to dig so deep to find out why. People need to wake up to the danger here.

The U.S. Department of State Counterterrorism Bureau, likely under direction from the Obama White House, is about to forgive the Castro Brothers and wipe the slate clean. Without any repentance from Cuba, any blood that flows from Cuba will be on Barack Obama and John Kerry. History will judge them wanting. Since they are doing this unilaterally and they alone will bear responsibility.

Well, see ya’ later!
(more…)

Dec
11
2014
0

#MinorityRights: The #SilentFilibuster Must Be Fully Restored

I’m going to go on the record here and strongly disagree with my fellow conservatives. I am angry that you have all of a sudden turned hypocrites on this matter. Well, I am not one of them!

…the Democrats are going to flip it back to 51 whenever it’s advantageous to them anyway.

You’re full of shit Moe, and you know it. We’re going to have a Democrat President and a Democrat Majority again, and you (along with many other conservatives) are going to scream bloody murder how they are ramming liberal/progressive judges and stuffing the executive branch with out of control liberals. Sure, talking filibusters are all good and fine. But they last, what, 12 hours? A day at most? What happens then?

This is about minority rights. The Rule Of Law tells us we can’t ride roughshod over the minority or the little guy. The silent filibuster ensures that in congress. The Silent Filibuster is enshrined in Treaty Clause, so we do have constitutional precedent for a silent filibuster.

Of course there is a political element to the silent filibuster too! Sure the Deomcrats can do it again, but we can tell Democratic voters they can feel easy voting for the GOP, since we will protect their rights as the minority. They will have a “buy in” to judges and the executive branch, even with a Republican president. It is not just good policy, but good politics too.

So I implore both Democrats and Republicans to fully restore the silent filibuster (with the exceptions of budgets and non binding resolutions, because that’s the majority’s right). I call on my fellow conservative commentators.

Well, see ya’ later!
(more…)

Theme: TheBuckmaker.com WordPress Webdesign
(Note: Website No Longer Works. Removing Link.)