'The Hal Lindsey Report'A few days ago, the leader of a small political party in England was arrested after speaking on the steps of Guildhall in Winchester. Paul Weston is chairman of Liberty-GB. To see his picture, you would think he is a lawyer or a doctor or a CPA or even a local pastor.
However, Paul Weston must be a rabble-rouser, at the least, or an anarchist, at worst, who advocates the overthrow of the British government. Otherwise, why would the authorities arrest him for his public speech?
He may be a rabble-rouser, but he's not an anarchist.
The public comments that caused Weston's arrest on "suspicion of racial harassment," were much more incendiary than the toppling of the government or the overthrow of the monarchy. Weston was critical of Islam.
On top of that, it wasn't even Weston's words which were critical of the world's most protected and coddled religion and to which the authorities objected. They were the words of none other than Great Britain's revered favorite son: Sir Winston Churchill.
Mr. Weston read a passage from a book by Churchill entitled The River War. A young Churchill wrote the book around 1899 based on his experiences as a British Army officer during the Mahdist War in the Sudan.
I have long been an admirer of Winston Churchill and have quoted him often on The Hal Lindsey Report. I have also been critical of Mr. Churchill's complicity in the naive drawing of the borders of the nations of the modern Middle East. Despite those criticisms, however, I have always acknowledged that few men in history had a way of grasping a situation and its implications as thoroughly as Winston Churchill.
That's why it's worth noting when Winston Churchill describes Islam by saying, "The influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world."
And those are just some of the words that landed Paul Weston in jail.
I think it's eerily ironic that the two practices you cannot criticize without risking your livelihood, your social standing, or even your life are Islam and homosexuality. But what's even more bizarre is that if you're Muslim and live in a society governed by Sharia law, it's acceptable to not only criticize homosexuality, but execute homosexuals.
And though the Gay movement doesn't hesitate to publicly crucify - even destroy - anyone who doesn't "approve" of their agenda, they're strangely silent when it comes to criticizing Islam for its beliefs and practices.
That's part of the problem they're facing over the Beverly Hills Hotel. A company owned by the Sultan of Brunei now owns the famous hotel, home of the even more famous Polo Lounge, long a gathering place of Hollywood's A-list.
Brunei is a tiny, oil rich country in Southeast Asia. And what the country owns belongs to the Sultan. That's why he's one of the world's richest people.
That's not the problem, though. His wealth and mind-blowing extravagance (he has 7,000 cars and, probably, his very own parking garage!) alone would make him a really popular guy in Hollywood. But the rub comes when his nation, Brunei, acted in accordance with its Islamic roots and recently instituted laws that include death by stoning for homosexuals and adulterers.
Now, it's understandable that that news would shake up a lot of folks in Hollywood. If someone stoned all the homosexuals and adulterers there, the place would probably be buried in rocks. Of course, the media is once again focusing on the disapproving celebrities and not on the real story -- these shocking laws are just another example of what happens when Islam rules.
And, if Paul Weston's story is any indication, it may not be long before Islam rules in Great Britain. It's already secured more than a foothold in other European nations where the Islamic population is growing nine times faster than the non-Islamic population. And, as I shared with you a few weeks ago, Muslims are demanding that they be allowed to live their lives according to Sharia law, not the law of the host nation.
And some Europeans want to capitulate and allow them to do so. But, be warned, that won't satisfy them. They will demand more and more until, finally, they will demand that the entire nation be governed by Sharia law.
In Nigeria, in an effort to appease radical Muslim groups, the government allowed the northern part of the nation to be subject to Sharia. But that's not enough to satisfy some Nigerian Muslims. They want the entire nation to submit.
That desire gave birth to a group loosely called Boko Haram. That westernized name is best translated, "Non-Muslim education is forbidden." However, the formal name of the group includes (in various translations) the words "jihad" or "Holy War." So you get the idea.
In the last few years, Boko Haram has grown increasingly radical and aggressive. Last month, they raided a girls' school and kidnapped 276 young women. They were whisked away into a forbidding jungle larger than the state of Indiana.
Boko Haram's leader has announced that he plans to sell the girls as slaves or child brides, for as little as $12 each. In fact, he insists that he's acting in accordance with the teachings and traditions of Islam, and on the direction of Allah. And it's difficult for so-called "moderate" Muslim groups around the world to denounce him because they have to acknowledge that he is, indeed, Koranically-correct.
What makes this heinous crime even more despicable is that no serious observer believes Boko Haram is bluffing. In February, they raided a Christian boys' school and slaughtered 50 boys. The Muslim jihadists shot some of them in their beds, slit others' throats, hacked them to death, or locked them in their dorms and burned them alive. Simply because they were Christians and being educated as such.
Some analysts say that Boko Haram has killed more than 10,000 people.
Almost no media reported when the boys were killed. Hundreds of Christians have been slaughtered and their churches burned while the mainstream media and the American government yawned. In fact, the media and the administration ignored the kidnapping of the girls until a frantic social media campaign, mostly on Twitter, shamed them into action.
Why?
Why did former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refuse to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist group, although now she feigns disgust at their actions? I think it's because President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and a host of other world leaders, past and present, made a strategic choice to get along with Muslim terrorists by giving in to them. Appeasement became the mantra of the day.
Winston Churchill must be spinning in his grave.
I know beyond doubt that, if he were alive today (and based on his life's example), he would remind us that if we don't recognize the nature of the enemy and the struggle we're in, we'll lose before we even start to resist. As he warned his fellow Britons almost 75 years ago, we must understand WHO and WHAT we're fighting if we have any hope of winning.
Even former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recognizes this mistake. In an interview on CNN, he said: "The Bush administration didn't do a good job.... you can't win a battle of ideas unless you describe the enemy, say who it is, say what's wrong with it, say what we do and why it"s right. We did that in the Cold War and we defeated Communism. We were tongue-tied over this and the Obama administration is much worse, they won't even use the word."
You probably know some "moderate" Muslims. That's okay. I do, too. They are usually very sweet and courteous. In fact, in The River War, Churchill also wrote that some "individual Moslems may show splendid qualities." But the fact is, "moderate Muslims" are not "good Muslims." To the extent that Muslims are moderate, they are not following the literal Koran and the Hadith.
Once again, the media is telling the story in a way that actually protects the source of the problem, and that is Islam itself. Somehow in our politically-correct, multicultural society, we've come to confuse "All men are created equal" with the notion that "all ideas are equal." They are not. Some ideas are just bad. And Islam is a bad idea.
Don't miss this week's Report on TBN, Daystar, CPM Network, The Word Network, various local stations, www.hallindsey.com or www.hischannel.com. Check your local listings.
However, Paul Weston must be a rabble-rouser, at the least, or an anarchist, at worst, who advocates the overthrow of the British government. Otherwise, why would the authorities arrest him for his public speech?
He may be a rabble-rouser, but he's not an anarchist.
The public comments that caused Weston's arrest on "suspicion of racial harassment," were much more incendiary than the toppling of the government or the overthrow of the monarchy. Weston was critical of Islam.
On top of that, it wasn't even Weston's words which were critical of the world's most protected and coddled religion and to which the authorities objected. They were the words of none other than Great Britain's revered favorite son: Sir Winston Churchill.
Mr. Weston read a passage from a book by Churchill entitled The River War. A young Churchill wrote the book around 1899 based on his experiences as a British Army officer during the Mahdist War in the Sudan.
I have long been an admirer of Winston Churchill and have quoted him often on The Hal Lindsey Report. I have also been critical of Mr. Churchill's complicity in the naive drawing of the borders of the nations of the modern Middle East. Despite those criticisms, however, I have always acknowledged that few men in history had a way of grasping a situation and its implications as thoroughly as Winston Churchill.
That's why it's worth noting when Winston Churchill describes Islam by saying, "The influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world."
And those are just some of the words that landed Paul Weston in jail.
I think it's eerily ironic that the two practices you cannot criticize without risking your livelihood, your social standing, or even your life are Islam and homosexuality. But what's even more bizarre is that if you're Muslim and live in a society governed by Sharia law, it's acceptable to not only criticize homosexuality, but execute homosexuals.
And though the Gay movement doesn't hesitate to publicly crucify - even destroy - anyone who doesn't "approve" of their agenda, they're strangely silent when it comes to criticizing Islam for its beliefs and practices.
That's part of the problem they're facing over the Beverly Hills Hotel. A company owned by the Sultan of Brunei now owns the famous hotel, home of the even more famous Polo Lounge, long a gathering place of Hollywood's A-list.
Brunei is a tiny, oil rich country in Southeast Asia. And what the country owns belongs to the Sultan. That's why he's one of the world's richest people.
That's not the problem, though. His wealth and mind-blowing extravagance (he has 7,000 cars and, probably, his very own parking garage!) alone would make him a really popular guy in Hollywood. But the rub comes when his nation, Brunei, acted in accordance with its Islamic roots and recently instituted laws that include death by stoning for homosexuals and adulterers.
Now, it's understandable that that news would shake up a lot of folks in Hollywood. If someone stoned all the homosexuals and adulterers there, the place would probably be buried in rocks. Of course, the media is once again focusing on the disapproving celebrities and not on the real story -- these shocking laws are just another example of what happens when Islam rules.
And, if Paul Weston's story is any indication, it may not be long before Islam rules in Great Britain. It's already secured more than a foothold in other European nations where the Islamic population is growing nine times faster than the non-Islamic population. And, as I shared with you a few weeks ago, Muslims are demanding that they be allowed to live their lives according to Sharia law, not the law of the host nation.
And some Europeans want to capitulate and allow them to do so. But, be warned, that won't satisfy them. They will demand more and more until, finally, they will demand that the entire nation be governed by Sharia law.
In Nigeria, in an effort to appease radical Muslim groups, the government allowed the northern part of the nation to be subject to Sharia. But that's not enough to satisfy some Nigerian Muslims. They want the entire nation to submit.
That desire gave birth to a group loosely called Boko Haram. That westernized name is best translated, "Non-Muslim education is forbidden." However, the formal name of the group includes (in various translations) the words "jihad" or "Holy War." So you get the idea.
In the last few years, Boko Haram has grown increasingly radical and aggressive. Last month, they raided a girls' school and kidnapped 276 young women. They were whisked away into a forbidding jungle larger than the state of Indiana.
Boko Haram's leader has announced that he plans to sell the girls as slaves or child brides, for as little as $12 each. In fact, he insists that he's acting in accordance with the teachings and traditions of Islam, and on the direction of Allah. And it's difficult for so-called "moderate" Muslim groups around the world to denounce him because they have to acknowledge that he is, indeed, Koranically-correct.
What makes this heinous crime even more despicable is that no serious observer believes Boko Haram is bluffing. In February, they raided a Christian boys' school and slaughtered 50 boys. The Muslim jihadists shot some of them in their beds, slit others' throats, hacked them to death, or locked them in their dorms and burned them alive. Simply because they were Christians and being educated as such.
Some analysts say that Boko Haram has killed more than 10,000 people.
Almost no media reported when the boys were killed. Hundreds of Christians have been slaughtered and their churches burned while the mainstream media and the American government yawned. In fact, the media and the administration ignored the kidnapping of the girls until a frantic social media campaign, mostly on Twitter, shamed them into action.
Why?
Why did former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refuse to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist group, although now she feigns disgust at their actions? I think it's because President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and a host of other world leaders, past and present, made a strategic choice to get along with Muslim terrorists by giving in to them. Appeasement became the mantra of the day.
Winston Churchill must be spinning in his grave.
I know beyond doubt that, if he were alive today (and based on his life's example), he would remind us that if we don't recognize the nature of the enemy and the struggle we're in, we'll lose before we even start to resist. As he warned his fellow Britons almost 75 years ago, we must understand WHO and WHAT we're fighting if we have any hope of winning.
Even former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recognizes this mistake. In an interview on CNN, he said: "The Bush administration didn't do a good job.... you can't win a battle of ideas unless you describe the enemy, say who it is, say what's wrong with it, say what we do and why it"s right. We did that in the Cold War and we defeated Communism. We were tongue-tied over this and the Obama administration is much worse, they won't even use the word."
You probably know some "moderate" Muslims. That's okay. I do, too. They are usually very sweet and courteous. In fact, in The River War, Churchill also wrote that some "individual Moslems may show splendid qualities." But the fact is, "moderate Muslims" are not "good Muslims." To the extent that Muslims are moderate, they are not following the literal Koran and the Hadith.
Once again, the media is telling the story in a way that actually protects the source of the problem, and that is Islam itself. Somehow in our politically-correct, multicultural society, we've come to confuse "All men are created equal" with the notion that "all ideas are equal." They are not. Some ideas are just bad. And Islam is a bad idea.
Don't miss this week's Report on TBN, Daystar, CPM Network, The Word Network, various local stations, www.hallindsey.com or www.hischannel.com. Check your local listings.
'The Hal Lindsey Report' - Hal Lindsey - www.hallindsey.com
Public education records are usually referred to as "transcripts." They include information about a student's courses of study, classes taken, grades received, honors bestowed, and degrees conferred.
Copies of transcripts are always required when enrolling in institutions of higher learning and are often required when applying for certain jobs. Candidates for public office often make their transcripts available to the public.
But those kinds of education records may someday be a thing of the past. And "someday" may already be here.
If you don't have schoolchildren, you may not realize how "digital" schools are becoming. School systems are in a mad dash to get laptop computers, iPads and tablets, and other electronic devices into the hands of all the kids. Often with funding from Uncle Sam.
Some schools even give students their own laptops and encourage them to use them at home for all kinds of activities.
It seems like decades ago when schools started letting children use calculators in class. That's probably why so many young adults today have difficulty doing simple math in everyday life. I know of college students who can't tell time on a standard watch, only on digital ones.
On the face of it, we assume that educators want children to be as well-versed in the electronic age as possible, that's why they start them so young.
But there may be a more sinister motive. Whereas the old transcripts used to include only major information like classes, grades, honors, and degrees, the new records contain every keystroke, every click of the mouse, every word written, test question answered (correctly or incorrectly), and every website visited -- and who knows what else! And since the NSA has proven that there's no limit to the amount of information that can be harvested and stored -- forever -- this information will stay on the child's record forever. It really will be a "permanent record."
Add to this the information kept by the school administration about each student's life outside the classroom, such as guidance counseling, extracurricular activities, even cafeteria payments and transportation arrangements, and each student record becomes a gold mine of information about that child.
And the Department of Education has changed the guidelines to allow private companies and government agencies access to these records without obtaining student consent.
I guess you can see where this is headed. And it's more alarming than just the fact that the school districts may sell information about their students to advertisers. This vast new data mine will allow the government to chart each student's maturing process with computer algorithms that can identify "tendencies," among other things. Psychologists are probably already working on tests that will enable computer programs to determine each child's tendency toward anti-social behavior, like terrorism.
Big Brother will not be a human being watching over our children's every keystroke, but a network of government computers programmed to spot trouble BEFORE it happens. And if a student is part of the "subversive element" in our society, namely, those who believe in and act according to God's Word, the government will have its eyes and ears on them at all times.
Just think how valuable this information will be in the hands of the Antichrist.
I've often said that during Jesus Christ's ministry on earth, his disciple Peter only opened his mouth to change feet. That sort of describes Secretary of State John Kerry, too.
I'm not certain if Kerry's missteps arise from his arrogance, his naivete, his lack of skill at the job, or his flawed understanding of the world and the importance of his words. For whatever reason, a John Kerry comment has caused another uproar.
In speaking "off the record" to the Trilateral Commission, Secretary Kerry suggested that if Israel doesn't allow the establishment of a Palestinian state, it could end up either being "an apartheid state with second-class citizens... or ...a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state."
Unfortunately for Kerry, but fortunately for Israel and those who support her, his comments were recorded and reported by a journalist.
The fact that a world leader of his stature would even imply that Israel is on the road to apartheid tells me that either he does not understand what apartheid is or he's duplicitous enough to use it as a club to bludgeon Israel into submission. Considering some of the other ill-starred and ill-timed comments Kerry has made, I think it's probably a little of both.
Jimmy Carter tried the same tactic once and lost much of the little credibility he had left.
Apartheid is a cruel system of oppression and violence that a ruthless minority uses to cling to power. It involves the denial of basic rights, the sequestration of majority populations to strictly controlled areas, and the suppression of education, opportunities, and liberties for the majority.
South Africa was the poster child for apartheid.
Israel bears no resemblance to South Africa. More than 1.5 million Arabs live in Israel and enjoy full Israeli citizenship. They sit in the Knesset. They sit on the Supreme Court. They study side by side with Jews in Israel's universities. They start and own businesses. They work in entertainment and in the professional fields. They even serve in the Israeli Defense Forces.
The Israeli Declaration of Independence welcomed, even encouraged, all Arabs in the land to join the Jews in "the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions."
Contrast that to the Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza who want their own state, but insist that it be Jew-free. That's not just apartheid, that's "ethnic-cleansing," a practice that is forbidden by the rest of the world. NATO has even invaded countries to end ethnic-cleansing (though never when it's the Muslims doing the ethnic-cleansing).
The checkpoints and barricades between the Palestinian-controlled "West Bank" and Gaza and the rest of Israel exist because those are the areas from which terrorist attacks against the Jews are launched. The checkpoints are an effort to prevent those attacks. Unfortunately, checkpoints couldn't limit the 10,000 rocket and missile attacks launched against Israel from Gaza in the last few years.
As I've often said, the Palestinians could have peace in a day if they but laid down their arms of aggression. But they refuse to do so. Even though it's in their own best interest. They could exchange their rocket-propelled grenade launchers for a ballot and become a part of the thriving economy that is Israel. And that is what many of the rank-and-file Palestinians secretly crave.
But it's as if they have hardened their hearts, like Pharaoh of old. (Exodus 10:20)
When you add to Secretary Kerry's recent remark the fact that he's made other public statements that appear to tacitly approve Palestinian violence, encourage the increasing isolation of Israel, and promote continued efforts to de-legitimize the Israeli state, it could be argued that he may not actually believe that the Jews have a special connection to the land of Israel.
In fact, we now know this to be true. This week, in a speech to U.S. State Department staff in Africa, Kerry scoffed at people who believe that others should "live by their interpretation of something that was written down a thousand plus, two thousand years ago. That's not the way I think most people want to live."
I'm hurt. It's apparent from that statement that Mr. Kerry does not regularly watch "The Hal Lindsey Report." Those of us who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and the accuracy of Bible prophecy are evidently not living the way he thinks "most people want to live."
And he's probably right -- for once.
Public education records are usually referred to as "transcripts." They include information about a student's courses of study, classes taken, grades received, honors bestowed, and degrees conferred.
Copies of transcripts are always required when enrolling in institutions of higher learning and are often required when applying for certain jobs. Candidates for public office often make their transcripts available to the public.
But those kinds of education records may someday be a thing of the past. And "someday" may already be here.
If you don't have schoolchildren, you may not realize how "digital" schools are becoming. School systems are in a mad dash to get laptop computers, iPads and tablets, and other electronic devices into the hands of all the kids. Often with funding from Uncle Sam.
Some schools even give students their own laptops and encourage them to use them at home for all kinds of activities.
It seems like decades ago when schools started letting children use calculators in class. That's probably why so many young adults today have difficulty doing simple math in everyday life. I know of college students who can't tell time on a standard watch, only on digital ones.
On the face of it, we assume that educators want children to be as well-versed in the electronic age as possible, that's why they start them so young.
But there may be a more sinister motive. Whereas the old transcripts used to include only major information like classes, grades, honors, and degrees, the new records contain every keystroke, every click of the mouse, every word written, test question answered (correctly or incorrectly), and every website visited -- and who knows what else! And since the NSA has proven that there's no limit to the amount of information that can be harvested and stored -- forever -- this information will stay on the child's record forever. It really will be a "permanent record."
Add to this the information kept by the school administration about each student's life outside the classroom, such as guidance counseling, extracurricular activities, even cafeteria payments and transportation arrangements, and each student record becomes a gold mine of information about that child.
And the Department of Education has changed the guidelines to allow private companies and government agencies access to these records without obtaining student consent.
I guess you can see where this is headed. And it's more alarming than just the fact that the school districts may sell information about their students to advertisers. This vast new data mine will allow the government to chart each student's maturing process with computer algorithms that can identify "tendencies," among other things. Psychologists are probably already working on tests that will enable computer programs to determine each child's tendency toward anti-social behavior, like terrorism.
Big Brother will not be a human being watching over our children's every keystroke, but a network of government computers programmed to spot trouble BEFORE it happens. And if a student is part of the "subversive element" in our society, namely, those who believe in and act according to God's Word, the government will have its eyes and ears on them at all times.
Just think how valuable this information will be in the hands of the Antichrist.
I've often said that during Jesus Christ's ministry on earth, his disciple Peter only opened his mouth to change feet. That sort of describes Secretary of State John Kerry, too.
I'm not certain if Kerry's missteps arise from his arrogance, his naivete, his lack of skill at the job, or his flawed understanding of the world and the importance of his words. For whatever reason, a John Kerry comment has caused another uproar.
In speaking "off the record" to the Trilateral Commission, Secretary Kerry suggested that if Israel doesn't allow the establishment of a Palestinian state, it could end up either being "an apartheid state with second-class citizens... or ...a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state."
Unfortunately for Kerry, but fortunately for Israel and those who support her, his comments were recorded and reported by a journalist.
The fact that a world leader of his stature would even imply that Israel is on the road to apartheid tells me that either he does not understand what apartheid is or he's duplicitous enough to use it as a club to bludgeon Israel into submission. Considering some of the other ill-starred and ill-timed comments Kerry has made, I think it's probably a little of both.
Jimmy Carter tried the same tactic once and lost much of the little credibility he had left.
Apartheid is a cruel system of oppression and violence that a ruthless minority uses to cling to power. It involves the denial of basic rights, the sequestration of majority populations to strictly controlled areas, and the suppression of education, opportunities, and liberties for the majority.
South Africa was the poster child for apartheid.
Israel bears no resemblance to South Africa. More than 1.5 million Arabs live in Israel and enjoy full Israeli citizenship. They sit in the Knesset. They sit on the Supreme Court. They study side by side with Jews in Israel's universities. They start and own businesses. They work in entertainment and in the professional fields. They even serve in the Israeli Defense Forces.
The Israeli Declaration of Independence welcomed, even encouraged, all Arabs in the land to join the Jews in "the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions."
Contrast that to the Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza who want their own state, but insist that it be Jew-free. That's not just apartheid, that's "ethnic-cleansing," a practice that is forbidden by the rest of the world. NATO has even invaded countries to end ethnic-cleansing (though never when it's the Muslims doing the ethnic-cleansing).
The checkpoints and barricades between the Palestinian-controlled "West Bank" and Gaza and the rest of Israel exist because those are the areas from which terrorist attacks against the Jews are launched. The checkpoints are an effort to prevent those attacks. Unfortunately, checkpoints couldn't limit the 10,000 rocket and missile attacks launched against Israel from Gaza in the last few years.
As I've often said, the Palestinians could have peace in a day if they but laid down their arms of aggression. But they refuse to do so. Even though it's in their own best interest. They could exchange their rocket-propelled grenade launchers for a ballot and become a part of the thriving economy that is Israel. And that is what many of the rank-and-file Palestinians secretly crave.
But it's as if they have hardened their hearts, like Pharaoh of old. (Exodus 10:20)
When you add to Secretary Kerry's recent remark the fact that he's made other public statements that appear to tacitly approve Palestinian violence, encourage the increasing isolation of Israel, and promote continued efforts to de-legitimize the Israeli state, it could be argued that he may not actually believe that the Jews have a special connection to the land of Israel.
In fact, we now know this to be true. This week, in a speech to U.S. State Department staff in Africa, Kerry scoffed at people who believe that others should "live by their interpretation of something that was written down a thousand plus, two thousand years ago. That's not the way I think most people want to live."
I'm hurt. It's apparent from that statement that Mr. Kerry does not regularly watch "The Hal Lindsey Report." Those of us who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and the accuracy of Bible prophecy are evidently not living the way he thinks "most people want to live."
And he's probably right -- for once.
PLEASE VISIT MY OTHER WEBSITES:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.