We Win, They Lose
The Wit and Wisdom of Three Guys Named Brent, Mark and Mike
Friday, November 28, 2003
Two Great Articles...
Don't miss these two from the Weekly Standard. Noemie Enery skewers the pro-abortion women who refuse to admit that most women favor the partial-birth abortion ban, and Maggie Gallagher has an excellent and thoughtful piece on gay marriage.

Handicapping the Democrats
Over at CQ, Craig Crawford has his latest odds on the Democrat nomination. Interesting reading.

Wednesday, November 26, 2003
"Pro my people"?
Dorothy Tillman, a Chicago Alderman, is a real symbol of our age. Two years ago two white waiters sued their hotel employer because she had asked the hotel to have only blacks wait on her, and the hotel complied. Tillman's response? According to a UPI story from that time:

Tillman, who is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit, says she asked for more black staff but did not suggest the management jettison the whites. She believes one of her staff members relayed the request.

Tillman said it's just a matter of principle that she's held for years: When black people spend money to go out to eat, black workers should benefit.

''We'll go to banquet after banquet after banquet, and we won't be served by our people,'' she said.

''We shouldn't eat where we can't work,'' Tillman said. ''It's not personal against anybody, I'm just pro-my people.''

However, it seems that this racist is not as "pro my people" as she suggested. Currently, she is demanding that a fellow African-American should step down from her position with Lehman Brothers because the company once owned a slave in 1850. Carole Brown spoke up to defend her company, which is facing a reparations lawsuit, saying "the Lehman Brothers in the 1850s is not the company that it is today."

Tillman's response?

"She should have kept her mouth shut and said, 'I'm not going to speak against my people.' Why is this young lady trying to speak on behalf of slave owners? They're saying], 'Let's parade this black woman out there,' " Tillman said.

"Who is she to say that things have changed? Things have not changed. The economy for blacks in this country is just as bad as it was under Jim Crow. We still have only 1 percent of the wealth. She's not there because of her merits or because someone loves her. She's there because of the fight we waged for parity in this country."

Tillman demanded that Brown make a choice: Apologize for allowing herself to be used to sanitize the reputation of a company built on the backs of her own people or step aside as CTA chairwoman.

"If she's that insensitive as an African-American woman not to understand the effects and residues of slavery, she certainly can't represent us on the CTA board. . . . She cannot speak for them and us too," Tillman said.

1. "The economy for blacks in this country is just as bad as it was under Jim Crow"? What planet is this lady living on?
2. Brown is "not there because of her merits"? Doesn't Brown at least lend diversity, and isn't that the end-all, be-all of employment these days?
3. Is it okay if white-owned companies hire only whites, so long as they argue that they are also simply being "pro my people"?
4. What fight has Tillman waged for parity? It was hundreds of thousands of whites that died to free the slaves.
5. What happened to the "pro my people" thing? Tillman is the one who should keep her mouth shut and say "I'm not going to speak against my people," rather than criticize another black.

Surely, even the fringe liberals recognize that this lady is a complete nutcake.

Tuesday, November 25, 2003
Nationwide Gay Marriage Inevitable?
That's what Senator Biden thinks. W. James Antle III has a good article at NRO which argues that in Massachusetts at least, the Senator is probably right.

Suicide Clinic
Hmmm... Here's a piece on a so-called "suicide slinic" in Switzerland being investigated for some suspicious deaths. By all means, let's bring this stateside.

Sunday, November 23, 2003
This is pretty funny...
A bunch of nitwits got together to "demonstrate" against the School of the Americas, but were drowned out by patriotic music from Army officials.

Of course, the nitwits plan to sue "over the noise tactic."

Of course.

Saturday, November 22, 2003
Off with her head!!!
This interesting item from the Miami Herald notes that Governor Bush's attorneys in the Terri Schiavo case have asked the trial judge to remove himself from hearing the challenge to the new law that allowed the state to reinsert the feeding tube that keeps Terri alive.

The "off with her head" remark stems from the Queen of Hearts character in the Lewis Carroll novel Alice in Wonderland:

''In the governor's view,'' [Attorney Ken] Connor wrote [in his recusal motion], "the findings as to the merits already made by Judge Baird seem strangely reminiscent of the trial recounted in Alice In Wonderland, wherein Knave was accused of stealing tarts belonging to the Queen of Hearts. After much furious (and spurious) argument, the following colloquy occurred amongst the Queen and Alice:

''Let the jury consider the verdict,'' the King said for the 20th time that day.

''No. No!'' said the Queen. "Sentence first -- verdict afterwards!''

''Stuff and nonsense!'' Alice said loudly. "The idea of having the sentence first!''

''Hold your tongue!'' the Queen said, turning purple.

''I won't!'' said Alice.

''Off with her head!'' the Queen shouted at the top of her voice.

Thursday, November 20, 2003
Ann Coulter cracks me up...
Don't miss this piece at FrontPageMag, it is hilarious. Two of the many great lines:

With economic growth and name recognition of the average Democratic presidential candidate both running at about 7 percent, the Democrats are in trouble.


Dick Gephardt's campaign platform is that his father was a milkman, his son almost died and his daughter is a lesbian. Vote for me!

College Republicans Banned From Campus
A professor at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington has written an astounding (and quite funny!) piece at FrontPageMag. It seems the Student Organization Committee has mandated a couple of "non-discrimination" clauses for all student group constitutions, and will not allow any dissent. One sample from the article:

What Stratton and the members of the SOC fail to understand (or perhaps pretend to fail to understand) is that numerous opponents of the CRs could join simultaneously and create an instant majority. In addition to keeping themselves from being removed, they could fundamentally change the nature of the group.

Now that they no longer have a student group, the former CRs should demonstrate the absurdity of the university’s policies by joining the Young Democrats. After they get in, they could endorse George W. Bush for President. Or maybe they could join the pro-choice group and condemn abortion. But why stop there? Wouldn’t it be fun to join the Gay Pride group and condemn homosexual sodomy. The possibilities are endless!

War of Words
Good piece by Paul Greenberg in the Washington Times.

Monday, November 17, 2003
Pardon me, did you know there are two dead guys in your trunk?
Check out this article -- why did they let them search the trunk?

Mormons and the Boy Scouts
Dave Sundwall over at A Soft Answer has linked to a Newsweek/MSNBC article about the Boy Scouts and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You can find the article and his commentary here.

Sunday, November 16, 2003
Not Wrong At All?
That's the title of an article I wrote a while ago. It coincides nicely with Brent's post (below) about abortionists.

Abortionists Are Evil
It is not pleasant to talk about, but people need to realize that some of those who promote and perform abortions could properly be classified as evil. Just read this report here.

Holy Crap!
Check out this guy's luck -- he bought not one, but two of the three winning tickets in the Mega Millions lottery. What are the odds?

Saturday, November 15, 2003
News Flash: NY Times NOT Biased
This article here proves that the NY Times does not have a liberal bias. Oh, wait. I read the article again. The "paper of record" only says it does not have a liberal bias. The article actually does much to show that it does. My bad.

Thursday, November 13, 2003
Orrin Hatch will you please go now.
Orrin Hatch truly is one of the biggest disappointments as a Senator who is supposedly conservative. He has introduced yet another bill with his best buddy, Ted Kennedy, this time a hate crimes law. You can read about it here. The disappointing part is that he, along with liberal Republicans and Democrats, is advocating making sexual orientation a protected class under the law. Furthermore, rather than treat those who might object to including sexual orientation as a protected class, Hatch admonished such persons to "grow up." Note that Hatch's position is different from that which he espoused earlier this year.

Never mind the reasonable criticisms which may be leveled against hate crimes legislation generally (see here, or here), it is deeply disappointing that a supposedly conservative Senator would propose making deviant sexual behavior subject to special Federal legal protection. Now before any of you lefties construed this statement as favoring or excusing ridicule or hatred directed at homosexuals, please note that I strongly believe, adhere to, live and promote Christ's admonition to love our neighbor as ourselves. This includes even those who engage in behavior I may find offensive, deviant, immoral, etc. However, there is no legitimate reason to make sexual orientation a protected class in hate crimes legislation. Furthermore, this type of legislation in other places has been used against individuals to prevent them from questioning homosexuality in public and has led to legislation infringing on free speech rights. See also here.

I truly cannot understand why Senator Hatch would (a) be proposing this legislation in the first place, and (b) ridiculing those who might object on a reasonable basis with provisions of the bill. I think it is time for Hatch to retire. Utahns need someone who will adequately represent their interests and work to restore the moral foundations upon which this nation is built.

Wednesday, November 12, 2003
BYU Business Grads Sought After for High Ethical Values
The Wall Street Journal reported today that in the wake of Enron and other corporate scandals, many recruiters are seeking out ethical students:

"Before Enron, ethics didn't occupy a central role at many schools," says Carolyn Woo, chairman of AACSB and dean of the Mendoza College of Business at the University of Notre Dame. "We must challenge students about how much their values are worth and develop an awareness in them of the ethical implications of business decisions. They must have their antennae up and not be naive."

"Indeed," said WSJ, "some recruiters say they are drawn more these days to religious schools like Notre Dame and Brigham Young University."

Religious schools? wow -- you mean religion can actually help you have high ethical standards?

BYU ranked second in a survey of recruiters when asked which M.B.A. programs are best for hiring graduates with high ethical standards.

Gospel Doctrine Lesson Materials
For those who are LDS, and really anyone who is curious about LDS views on the scriptures and principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ, may be interested in this site here.

Ohio's Defense of Marriage Act



Testimony to be provided by Brent A. Andrewsen, Esq.

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present testimony in support of House Bill 272, more commonly known as Ohio’s Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA. I will try to be brief. DOMA is directed at accomplishing three important objectives:

First, DOMA declares that same-sex marriages are against the strong public policy of the state of Ohio and have no legal force or effect in this state. Second, DOMA prohibits the legal recognition of same-sex marriages or civil unions entered into in another jurisdiction. Third, DOMA prevents the state of Ohio from extending the benefits of marriage to any non-marital relationship between persons of the same sex or different sexes. DOMA does not, however, prevent political subdivisions or private or public companies from offering benefits traditionally provided only to married couples if they so choose. Similarly, DOMA does not prevent individuals of the same sex or different sexes from planning their affairs or taking advantage of all the rights and laws available to all citizens. To summarize DOMA clarifies, reiterates and ensures that marriage, with all of its benefits and burdens, will only be recognized under Ohio law as the union of one man and one woman.

Let me offer several reasons why I believe DOMA should be enacted.

1. DOMA protects the time honored and current definition of marriage in America and in Ohio.

The regulation of marriage is one of the first duties of legislatures. Aristotle said it was the first duty. Marriage may best be defined as “the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.” Although marriage as the union of one man and one woman has been favored for centuries in various cultures and countries, it can be argued that “America has long sustained an unusually strong culture of marriage.” Perhaps this is due to our historical awareness of the many benefits provided to society by marriage.

Alexis de Tocqueville commented after his visit to America in the early nineteenth century that:

There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more respected than in America, or where conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated . . . . While the European endeavors to forget his domestic troubles by agitating society, the American derives from his own home that love of order which he afterwards carries with him into public affairs.

In addition to providing this “love of order” mentioned by de Toqueville, marriage also strengthens society by further benefiting men and women who enter into marriage. Benjamin Franklin noted that:

The married state is, after all our jokes, the happiest, being comformable to our natures. Man and woman have each of them qualities and tempers, in which the other is deficient, and which in union contribute to the common felicity. Single and separate, they are not the complete human being; they are like the odd halves of scissors; they cannot answer the end of their formation.

Perhaps the primary reason marriage has received such long-standing public recognition and benefit is because of the role it plays providing the best, most stable environment in which to bear and rear children. Marriage has been tied to reproduction and the upbringing of children for centuries. Admittedly, children can be and are born to unmarried persons. However, historical experience and countless studies have shown that no other relationship is better for bringing children into the world and nurturing them toward adulthood. Marriage also provides other tangible benefits: it helps bonding between men and children, fosters healthy masculine and feminine identity, and better promotes the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults. Marriage and the family is the fundamental unit of society. This is why either the legislatures or the people by popular vote of 37 other states have passed defense of marriage laws.

Ohio law and public policy has always recognized this specific definition of marriage, presumably for the reasons mentioned above. The Ohio legislature should pass DOMA to show its support for and to protect marriage and family as the foundational building blocks of society.

2. DOMA will prevent other legal jurisdictions from radically altering Ohio law without the review or consent of the Ohio legislature and Ohio citizens

The question really presented by DOMA is whether you as Ohio legislators will choose to protect marriage as it has been defined in this state historically and as it is defined currently, or whether you will let political subdivisions outside of Ohio radically alter Ohio law, without your oversight or input.

Over the past three years several nations (Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany) revised their laws to allow what some have called same-sex marriage or to allow “civil unions.” Some Canadian courts recently mandated the recognition of same-sex marriages in Canada. In 2000, the Vermont legislature approved a “civil unions” bill allowing same-sex couples to have all of the benefits of marriage. (I should mention that this bill was passed by the legislature only because it was mandated to do so by the Vermont Supreme Court ). Court cases are pending in Massachusetts and New Jersey wherein the plaintiffs claim a right to enter into marriage with a person of the same sex. Most legal and political commentators expect at least Massachusetts to establish a “right” to same-sex marriage in the near future. Once that occurs, same-sex couples from around the nation will travel to Massachusetts to marry and then will seek to have their marriages recognized in their home states. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution would require such home states to recognize the Massachusetts marriages unless the public policy exception were to apply. Under this important exception to the general rule that a state is obligated to give full faith and credit to the decrees and acts of other states, Ohio could refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in Massachusetts or another state if Ohio has a strong public policy against same-sex marriage. Therefore, DOMA is absolutely necessary to establish clearly that Ohio has a strong public policy against same-sex marriage. The current marriage statute is insufficient to protect Ohio against the legal challenges that will come.

It is not a matter of if a challenge to Ohio’s current marriage law will occur, but when such a challenge will happen. The Ohio General Assembly must not abdicate its duty to regulate marriage in Ohio. It certainly must not allow a legislature or court of any other legal jurisdiction to set public policy for Ohio. Regardless of whether you support the definition of marriage I have provided (and which Ohio has recognized for more than two hundred years) or believe that marriage should be redefined to allow marriages between persons of the same sex, it is the duty of each legislator of this state to support this legislation to protect Ohio’s state sovereignty. Whether and if Ohio marriage law is to change, it should be under the direction of the Ohio legislature with the input of Ohio citizens and only after careful and reasoned deliberation as to its effects on the state and its citizens.

3. DOMA will prevent confusion and uneven application of Ohio laws.

Just to show you how large an impact it would have on Ohio law if another state chose to redefine marriage, I conducted a simple online search of the Ohio Revised Code to find the number of instances in which the terms “marriage,” “spouse,” “wife,” “husband,” and “parent” could be found. I discovered that such terms occur more than 1,000 times in the Ohio Revised Code. (I should mention that this number may be low as the search was conducted with a search engine that limited the results for each term to 300.) Undoubtedly, same-sex couples would seek recognition under any number of these various statutes with the likely result being confusion and uneven application of the law.

As an attorney, I practice primarily in the areas of estate planning and probate. Many provisions under Ohio’s Probate Code and other statutes related to estate planning and probate provide specific benefits (and burdens) to spouses and other family members. Without clear direction from the Ohio legislature, a probate or appellate court in one county may choose to recognize a same-sex marriage performed elsewhere, while another may not. It is my understanding that this was one of the reasons for which Ohio Association of Probate Law Judges voted to support Defense of Marriage legislation during the last legislative session. DOMA would make Ohio’s marriage law clear and would preserve the terms and standards built into various other laws impacting or relating to marriage and the family.

In conclusion, let me reiterate again that the regulation of marriage is one of the first duties of the legislature if not the first duty. DOMA is necessary to protect marriage in Ohio and to protect the right of the Ohio legislature to regulate marriage without undue influence from other legal jurisdictions or an activist judiciary here.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I will be happy to answer any questions that you or the members of the Committee may have for me.

Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Cool Quote for this site
We may win when we lose, if we have done what we can; for by so doing we have made real at least some part of that finished product in whose fabrication we are most concerned: ourselves.

-- Judge Learned Hand

Monday, November 10, 2003
Bush in Greenville
President Bush visited my neighborhood today, giving a speech at the BMW plant in Greenville, SC. I was lucky enough to be a driver in the motorcade (hauling the "wire" reporters), which was pretty cool.

Question answered?
The big news of the day? The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal asking whether foreigners held at the U.S. Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, may contest their captivity in U.S. courts.

If the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, doesn't that mean that these prisoners are able to contest their captivity in US courts?

Sunday, November 09, 2003
If you want to make more money, why not get a job that pays more? Oh, that's right - you're an idiot.
Employees of Borders bookstore in Ann Arbor, MI went on strike Saturday. (Very brief registration required) Said Borders employee Allison Nadeau:

"I believe the retail worker is the new blue collar worker," Nadeau said. "We need to make a living wage. There has to be an end to corporate greed. We are all being treated like we don't deserve to make a decent living."

Several points:
1. If you "need" to make a "living wage," why are you working for Borders?
2. Why does there have to be an end to "corporate greed," but not your own? Aren't you on strike because you (gasp!) want more money?
3. You aren't being "treated" poorly by Borders -- they did not force you to go on strike. If you want more money, surely another employer will recognize your immense talents and pay you what you "deserve." Remember, though, you have refused to work, instead standing outside encouraging customers to not shop in your store -- this seems counterproductive, to say the least.
4. Finally, no one forced you to get (or keep) a job at Borders -- why would you want to work at such a greedy, corporate place to begin with? Go home if you don't like it. Or better yet, start your own business ... just make sure you pay every employee what they feel they "deserve", i.e., a "living wage."

Gay Alumni Group for Naval Academy?
Surprisingly enough, the man who is organizing a group that hopes to become "USNA Out," an official gay alumni group for the US Naval Aacademy, "now lives in San Francisco." Can you believe that - a gay person in San Francisco?

Saturday, November 08, 2003
Good Post at SA
I've just posted a good one over at Southern Appeal. Check it out.

What do you say to this?
A girl (so far as we know) has been selected as Homecoming King of her high school:

Hayward High has no rules defining the gender of homecoming king and queen. Students and teachers consulted the dictionary, which suggests a king is male.

Sounds like a sexist (and maybe even homophobic!) dictionary to me -- off with its head!!!

Thursday, November 06, 2003
If you don't like what someone is saying, just beat them up.
Some nutjob sent an email to the columnist who wrote this article, about an "affirmative action bake sale" at the University of Washington.

The email, and the reply, can be read at this post.

N.H. Episcopalians shun "alternative" pastoral care
The Washington Times notes that at least two congregations are asking an out-of-state diocese to supervise their congregations after the openly homosexual Gene Robinson was consecrated as bishop of New Hampshire.

Bishop Douglas Theuner, who continues to serve as bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire until his retirement in March, said he and incoming Bishop V. Gene Robinson "will be happy to meet with any congregation wishing to consider alternative Episcopal pastoral care."

Uh, actually, Bishop, these groups asked for someone else because they are not wishing to consider "alternative" Episcopal pastoral care.

Wednesday, November 05, 2003
Fetal Brains Suffer Badly From Effects of Alcohol
This article from the New York Times notes that:

Drinking in the first trimester can lead to facial malformations, while in the second it can interrupt nerve formation in the brain, Dr. West said. During the third, it can kill existing neurons and interfere with nervous system development, he added.

I wonder when the Ol' Grey Lady is gonna run an article titled "Fetal Brains Suffer Badly From Being Sucked Out of Their Skulls and Tossed in a Sink."

Porno U
$30,000.00 a year for this? Let me guess, your degree is in "queer studies." How nice.

O'Reilly Reports, We Decide
I have discussed in previous posts, the controversy confronting the Episcopal Church due to the appointment and now consecration of Gene Robinson, an open homosexual, as Bishop of New Hampshire. Bill O'Reilly had an Episcopalian Bishop and Reverend on his program last night to discuss the issue.

O'Reilly asked difficult questions of both men. You can read the transcript here and decide for yourself who made the more persuasive arguments.

Tuesday, November 04, 2003
Those nasty "conservatives" strike again....
With the news that the "Reagan" mini-series has been pulled from CBS, it is once again instructive to see how the media portray things. On the radio, I heard ABC news state that the program was canceled after a "leaked script caused a storm of criticism from conservatives." Funny how anyone who stands for fairness, decency and accuracy is automatically labeled "conservative" by the press. Do they really mean to imply that not a single critic of the show was "moderate," or liberal?

I once heard ABC characterize some protestors of pornography as "conservative," as if only conservatives would be uptight enough to not want obscene materials freely available. Another time they stated that the Bush tax-refund checks were "windfalls."

What a joke.

Government and Wild Fires
Neal Boortz makes some interesting observations about media coverage of the California wild fires. Boortz effectively argues that journalists have a difficult time putting things in perspective. However, the best part of his commentary, and one which we would all be well served to consider, is the fact that California firefighters may have been able to contain or slow down the San Diego fire but for government bureaucracy. He says:

"Right now, the American people are clamoring for more government involvement in their health care. Consider, please, the demonstrated decision-making abilities of government. When it's your life instead of a mountainside of brush that is threatened by disaster, do you want government making the decisions on how the threat is to be fought?"

Uh . . . I am going to go with No. I do not want government making those decisions. And yes, Regis, that is my final answer.

Monday, November 03, 2003
I'm surprised some gay-rights group doesn't sue ... or move in.
An article in the Daily Illini discusses how the visiting locker room at Iowa is painted pink, stating that pink is a "calming, low energy, deferring and placid" color. Iowa is 97-49 since former coach Hayden Fry came up with the idea in 1979.

This raises an interesting question -- why aren't there any sports teams that use pink as a uniform or team color? Maybe there are, but I don't recall ever seeing one (and I think I would remember something like that). For you athletes, would you ever be caught dead in a pink uniform?

If America is so racist, why do foreigners go to such lengths to get here?
The New York Times has an interesting article about the smuggling of youth across the Mexico-U.S. border.

This woman is an idiot
The New York Times today published a letter to the editor it titled "Our bodies, our choice." The writer, one Barbara B. Harrell, M.D. states, in part:

"As a retired obstetrician-gynecologist, I agree that the right to abortion should not hinge on the issue of fetal personhood."

She goes on:

"The question we should be asking is whether any person has the right to inflict on any other person, against his or her will, the bodily ailments that frequently accompany pregnancy[.]" (emphasis added)

But if a fetus is a person, does the mother have the right to "inflict [on it] against [its] will, the bodily ailments that frequently accompany [abortion]?" Clearly, the right to abortion must necessarily "hinge on the issue of fetal personhood." Does this lady not realize that she contradicts herself?

Hello? Anyone? Bueller?

The staunchest advocates of abortion are often the most illogical.

Sunday, November 02, 2003
Wardle Testimony in Massachusetts
Over a year ago, Lynn Wardle provided testimony in favor of an amendment to Massachusetts' Constitution to shore up the state's definition of marriage. He raises some excellent points.

Saturday, November 01, 2003
Well, we're movin on up....
As you can see from this post, Brent and I have been offered (and accepted) Steve's gracious invitation to join Southern Appeal, one of the best blogs around.

We will keep this site alive (and, hopefully, interesting!), but I imagine that most of my attention will be focused towards Southern Appeal henceforth. Please come check us out, and continue to stop by here every once in a while to see what else is going on!

Does this guy qualify for affirmative-action?
Here is an interesting article about a man who spent fifty-plus years believing he was black only to have a DNA test reveal otherwise. One quote from the man:

"The question ultimately is, are you who you say you are, or are you who you are genetically?"

That's a question perhaps best directed to the Sachs Foundation, a Colorado outfit that gives college grants to "Black (African-American) Colorado Residents Only." And just how do they determine who is "Black" or "African-American," you ask? Easy -- they interview the person about such things as their "philosophy, commitment to the African-American race and self-identify[.]"

I wonder if this guy would qualify now?

Interesting Bill Clinton quote:
"The first and most solemn obligation of the president is to keep America strong and safe from foreign dangers, and promote democracy around the world." This comes from his speech announcing his candidacy for President, October 3, 1991.

Powered by Blogger

WWW We Win, They Lose