Ontario and Quebec are at Copenhagen this week where they have gone on record as opposing any subsidy on their part to assist Alberta in achieving carbon reduction.
The nerve!!
To begin with, what the Hell are Provinces doing at Copenhagen? International Forums are State and not a Provincial matters; a Country needs to speak with one voice - not three.
Anyway, back to the issue of these two ingrates.
Over past decades Quebec has benefited mightily from the huge transfer payments it receives from Alberta.
Ontario, as Canada's manufacturer, too has benefited greatly by selling its finished goods to the West. Now, ironically, it too may start to receive Western Transfer Monies as a result of its new Have not status. Plus, where does Ontario expect to receive its future Oil supplies?
Where is the equity - the fairness in their self-serving stance?
If Quebec had oil, as opposed to water power, you can bet your bottom dollar that they would oppose any attempt by the ROC to impose carbon caps. Such an issue alone would likely be enough to see Separation finally come about.
It may just have this effect for Alberta - and perhaps Saskatchewan. While the numbers favouring separation have been low in the West, compared to those in Quebec, this issue, if left unchecked, is likely to spike those numbers considerably. And for the West - Separation will be no Bluff.
In the interim, it will certainly help the Wild Rose Party become the next Provincial Government.
As Ralph Klein, a great Canadian so aptly said a few years back, 'let the Eastern Bastards freeze in the Dark'.
We deserve no less.
As I see it...
"Galagher"
Monday, December 14, 2009
Saturday, December 12, 2009
OBAMA'S Address at West Point
About a week ago, President Obama gave a speech at West Point wherein he increased the US troop strength in Afghanistan by 30,000. Interestingly, they are to be deployed in the Kandahar District where our soldiers have been fighting due to the fact that it is the most dangerous spot in all of Afghanistan. Canadian Soldiers deserve quite a pat on the back for single-handedly keeping that area under control awaiting American reinforcements.
Anyway, I digress.
I thought his speech deserved an A (ie 8/10) but was surprised by the comments from both sides of the debate in America. The Right roundly condemned it for being unlike FDR - ie "a Day that will live in Infamy' and not Churchillian enough (ie) "we will fight them on the beaches.."
But Obama was not reeling from an attack or preparing the nation for imminent invasion - he was only adding 30,000 fresh troops to the mix.
The Left, in turn, cried 'sellout' and compared Obama with George W and his Surge in Iraq. But Afghanistan is not Iraq. The attacks on the Trade Buildings were planned and originated from Afghanistan.
My 'A' for the speech was based on the fact that Obama had to walk a tight rope between these two camps and the fact that he upset them both tells me he succeeded. He authorized the additional troops, requested by his Commanders in the field and he set an arbitrary timetable to get out which he hoped would appeal to his leftist base.
Having said that, both sides arguments have some merit. First, the Surge worked wonders for the Republicans in Iraq and hopefully it will do the same this time. No guarantees though.
Second - setting the arbitrary timetable puts the Afghan Administration on notice that they will soon have to take care of their own security - as it should be. It also puts NATO on notice that the US is not going to continue to spend vast sums of money and blood when most Member Countries sit back with their feet up.
As I have said before it is no longer just a philosophical discussion - the USA is going broke. With Trillions in debt, they simply can no longer afford to play the World Policeman as much as they and we may like for them to do just that.
I have serious concerns re President Obama. I have yet to figure the guy out but do know that he is spending too much and building too great a government empire.
What I do know is that I liked his speech and think it worthy of an 'A'.
As I see it...
"Galagher"
Anyway, I digress.
I thought his speech deserved an A (ie 8/10) but was surprised by the comments from both sides of the debate in America. The Right roundly condemned it for being unlike FDR - ie "a Day that will live in Infamy' and not Churchillian enough (ie) "we will fight them on the beaches.."
But Obama was not reeling from an attack or preparing the nation for imminent invasion - he was only adding 30,000 fresh troops to the mix.
The Left, in turn, cried 'sellout' and compared Obama with George W and his Surge in Iraq. But Afghanistan is not Iraq. The attacks on the Trade Buildings were planned and originated from Afghanistan.
My 'A' for the speech was based on the fact that Obama had to walk a tight rope between these two camps and the fact that he upset them both tells me he succeeded. He authorized the additional troops, requested by his Commanders in the field and he set an arbitrary timetable to get out which he hoped would appeal to his leftist base.
Having said that, both sides arguments have some merit. First, the Surge worked wonders for the Republicans in Iraq and hopefully it will do the same this time. No guarantees though.
Second - setting the arbitrary timetable puts the Afghan Administration on notice that they will soon have to take care of their own security - as it should be. It also puts NATO on notice that the US is not going to continue to spend vast sums of money and blood when most Member Countries sit back with their feet up.
As I have said before it is no longer just a philosophical discussion - the USA is going broke. With Trillions in debt, they simply can no longer afford to play the World Policeman as much as they and we may like for them to do just that.
I have serious concerns re President Obama. I have yet to figure the guy out but do know that he is spending too much and building too great a government empire.
What I do know is that I liked his speech and think it worthy of an 'A'.
As I see it...
"Galagher"
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Taliban Prisoners...Peter MacKay
Note: below I am critical of Peter MacKay for allegedly saying Richard Colvin was a lackey of the Taliban. The Press had widely reported that he had said just that but MacKay has come out and denied it. With the little regard I have for our leftist Press, I will take MacKay's word any day... That said, I still think his overall criticism of a public servant was not becoming a Minister of the Crown. Unless it is a criminal act or some wantoned disregard of duty, He and Harper should leave criticisms to a public servant's senior managers.
A tempest in a teapot.
Iggnatieff and the Liberal Press believe they have Defence Minister MacKay 'on the ropes' over the Detainee / Torture Issue. Both are simply deluding themselves.
The fact is, Canadians really don't give a damn if heartless murderers are roughed up a bit in detention.
More to the point, if the Defence Brass only became aware of one case as of yesterday, how does that implicate MacKay in a cover-up? Where do Iggy and the Press expect MacKay to get his information from - the Taliban?
Iggnatief has a habit of getting on the wrong horse at the right time and I believe he has done it again. Moreover, I cannot see this issue surviving the Christmas break since Liberal MPs are likely to get an earful from their constituents - in support of Mackay - over that period.
MacKay though is not without criticism; his over the top attack on Ambassador Richard Colvin was not called for. I too question Colvin's motivation in all of this but for MacKay to suggest he was being a lackey of the Taliban was a bit much.
That brings me to recent speculation that there will be a small Cabinet Shuffle over Christmas.
The feeling is that MacKay will be transferred out of Defence.
If I was MacKay, I would not fight that move - not because of the 'Colvins' of this Country, but because the real Defence Minister is none other than Stephen Harper himself.
I get the sense that there is no love lost between the two - this despite the fact that Harper could never have become Leader of the new Conservative Party without Peter's help. Simply stated, he is not likely to advance in the current situation. Plus he has already had his shot at Leadership when he led the Progressive Conservative Party before its amalgamation with Reform.
Peter MacKay needs to look ahead - to his next step. And might I suggest a Senate appointment. This coming from me - a staunch opponent of everything Senate.
I make this suggestion though not in what MacKay could add to this tired old Institution, but rather to what he could do for the Conservatives outside its stifling walls. He could become the true and lasting God Father for Atlantic Canada in the same way in which the wily old Senator Allan MacEachen performed this role for the Liberals.
If I was Harper I would refrain from making such an appointment until right after the next Election but circumstances could force his hand sooner.
As I see it...
"Galagher"
A tempest in a teapot.
Iggnatieff and the Liberal Press believe they have Defence Minister MacKay 'on the ropes' over the Detainee / Torture Issue. Both are simply deluding themselves.
The fact is, Canadians really don't give a damn if heartless murderers are roughed up a bit in detention.
More to the point, if the Defence Brass only became aware of one case as of yesterday, how does that implicate MacKay in a cover-up? Where do Iggy and the Press expect MacKay to get his information from - the Taliban?
Iggnatief has a habit of getting on the wrong horse at the right time and I believe he has done it again. Moreover, I cannot see this issue surviving the Christmas break since Liberal MPs are likely to get an earful from their constituents - in support of Mackay - over that period.
MacKay though is not without criticism; his over the top attack on Ambassador Richard Colvin was not called for. I too question Colvin's motivation in all of this but for MacKay to suggest he was being a lackey of the Taliban was a bit much.
That brings me to recent speculation that there will be a small Cabinet Shuffle over Christmas.
The feeling is that MacKay will be transferred out of Defence.
If I was MacKay, I would not fight that move - not because of the 'Colvins' of this Country, but because the real Defence Minister is none other than Stephen Harper himself.
I get the sense that there is no love lost between the two - this despite the fact that Harper could never have become Leader of the new Conservative Party without Peter's help. Simply stated, he is not likely to advance in the current situation. Plus he has already had his shot at Leadership when he led the Progressive Conservative Party before its amalgamation with Reform.
Peter MacKay needs to look ahead - to his next step. And might I suggest a Senate appointment. This coming from me - a staunch opponent of everything Senate.
I make this suggestion though not in what MacKay could add to this tired old Institution, but rather to what he could do for the Conservatives outside its stifling walls. He could become the true and lasting God Father for Atlantic Canada in the same way in which the wily old Senator Allan MacEachen performed this role for the Liberals.
If I was Harper I would refrain from making such an appointment until right after the next Election but circumstances could force his hand sooner.
As I see it...
"Galagher"
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Somethings Rotten In the State of Denmark
Global Warming is finally beginning to smell..
I have always had trouble believing that CO2 - a colourless, odorless gas used in photosynthesis, poses a threat to the world's climate.
That said, I view myself as an environmentalist since I am - and I expect you are - opposed to pollution of any type. After all, the world we live in is the only one we have and we would like to pass it on to our children and our children's children in as pristine of condition as possible.
For some reason though the left has seized on CO2 as being the bad guy in it all. I can see why Al Gore has done so - he of many mansions, has been able to increase his wealth tenfold due to this scam.
But what of the rest? Where is their concern when it comes to dirty air and water? Why do they not take a better look at the hidden contents of the food and water we drink and eat?
Why should trillions of dollars be transferred to so-called underdeveloped countries (I say "so-called" since China falls under that category) to reduce their CO2 emissions when we know well that this is unlikely to happen?
Would these trillions not be better spent providing food, medical and housing assistance to the world's poor and education for their children? It is a scandal that the United Nations has been in existence for over 60 years and these terrible issues remain unresolved. But the UN finds time to criticize Israel for everything under the sun!
As a Libertarian I see government's role to be a very limited one. But there is one important area where they can be useful and that is in the area of R&D. Working in conjunction with Industry and Universities - Governments can spearhead research in the area of Environmental Protection. We know that the burning of fossil fuels is not Environmentally friendly - so we desperately need to find viable alternatives and government is best placed to do that.
Much has been done in this area but so much more remains before Western Civilization can ween itself off fossil fuels. It is too bad that the oil crisis of the 1970s was allowed to pass without a serious attempt to find alternative power sources. We have lost 40 years due to this inaction.
The Left would have us in the West live in tents while the Rest of the World continues to pump CO2 into the atmosphere in ever increasing amounts.
It won't happen. The instinct for our survival is just too strong.
Let's though work together and clean up all Pollution - CO2 included, in a structured and reasoned fashion.
In the meantime, monies for transfer to the Underdevelops should be targeted to ending poverty where it will do so much good.
As I see it...
"Galagher"
I have always had trouble believing that CO2 - a colourless, odorless gas used in photosynthesis, poses a threat to the world's climate.
That said, I view myself as an environmentalist since I am - and I expect you are - opposed to pollution of any type. After all, the world we live in is the only one we have and we would like to pass it on to our children and our children's children in as pristine of condition as possible.
For some reason though the left has seized on CO2 as being the bad guy in it all. I can see why Al Gore has done so - he of many mansions, has been able to increase his wealth tenfold due to this scam.
But what of the rest? Where is their concern when it comes to dirty air and water? Why do they not take a better look at the hidden contents of the food and water we drink and eat?
Why should trillions of dollars be transferred to so-called underdeveloped countries (I say "so-called" since China falls under that category) to reduce their CO2 emissions when we know well that this is unlikely to happen?
Would these trillions not be better spent providing food, medical and housing assistance to the world's poor and education for their children? It is a scandal that the United Nations has been in existence for over 60 years and these terrible issues remain unresolved. But the UN finds time to criticize Israel for everything under the sun!
As a Libertarian I see government's role to be a very limited one. But there is one important area where they can be useful and that is in the area of R&D. Working in conjunction with Industry and Universities - Governments can spearhead research in the area of Environmental Protection. We know that the burning of fossil fuels is not Environmentally friendly - so we desperately need to find viable alternatives and government is best placed to do that.
Much has been done in this area but so much more remains before Western Civilization can ween itself off fossil fuels. It is too bad that the oil crisis of the 1970s was allowed to pass without a serious attempt to find alternative power sources. We have lost 40 years due to this inaction.
The Left would have us in the West live in tents while the Rest of the World continues to pump CO2 into the atmosphere in ever increasing amounts.
It won't happen. The instinct for our survival is just too strong.
Let's though work together and clean up all Pollution - CO2 included, in a structured and reasoned fashion.
In the meantime, monies for transfer to the Underdevelops should be targeted to ending poverty where it will do so much good.
As I see it...
"Galagher"
Friday, December 4, 2009
CHINA- Who Lost Face?
Just Who Lost Face Mr. Ignatieff?
Yesterday the Chinese Leadership "dressed down" our Prime Minister for not genuflecting before their massive industrial and yes, dictatorial State.
Ignatieff was quick out of the blocks bemoaning the 'fact' that Harper had not only lost face personally; he had also lost face on behalf of all of Canada. The shame.
Give your head a shake Michael - some loss of face. China is a Totalitarian State where it imprisons or kills its political opponents and is not above harvesting their organs.
Those who suck up to China must do so at the expense of down playing their extreme human rights abuses.
And, it is they who have lost faith.
From the start, I have tried to give Ignatieff the benefit of the doubt but have now reached the limit of my patience.
Remember too, Ignatieff's recent assertion that Quebec was not getting its fair share of the bail out monies. As if.
There appears to be no lows to which he will stoop. And so much for his new Advisors.
There was much celebration later in the day when China finally added Canada to its "approved destination status".
We are now in the agust company of such distinguished Human Rights Promotors as: Cuba; Burma; Ghana; Pakistan; Sri Lanka; Syria; Uganda; and Zimbabwe. Imagine? Aren't we fortunate.
I was listening to the Business Channel where its guests were unanimous in finding that Harper has been remiss in not pursuing more ties with China. 'We in Canada have lost so much economically due to his misguided approach'.
Well I have news for these so-called experts - it is China that has lost out by pursuing its ruthless agenda. Moreover, they are and industrial giant - and therefore makes things.
Indeed, any country can manufacture items but Canada is in the unique position of having the scarce resources needed make that happen. There is no limit across the world for our valuable resources.
Bottomline, China needs Canada more than we need China.
As I see it..
Note: I asked for input re my recent article on Caledonia and was disappointed by the limited reply. Only 6 came in - 4 in favour of police action and 1 in favour of a status quo approach. The 6th said he was undecided but leaning to taking action. I found his rationale of interest:
"If I was Premier and knew that police action would likely result in the death of human beings I would have trouble making that decision. I understand the importance of enforcing the Rule of Law but to know someone may have to die to enforce it is sobering for me."
"Galagher"
Yesterday the Chinese Leadership "dressed down" our Prime Minister for not genuflecting before their massive industrial and yes, dictatorial State.
Ignatieff was quick out of the blocks bemoaning the 'fact' that Harper had not only lost face personally; he had also lost face on behalf of all of Canada. The shame.
Give your head a shake Michael - some loss of face. China is a Totalitarian State where it imprisons or kills its political opponents and is not above harvesting their organs.
Those who suck up to China must do so at the expense of down playing their extreme human rights abuses.
And, it is they who have lost faith.
From the start, I have tried to give Ignatieff the benefit of the doubt but have now reached the limit of my patience.
Remember too, Ignatieff's recent assertion that Quebec was not getting its fair share of the bail out monies. As if.
There appears to be no lows to which he will stoop. And so much for his new Advisors.
There was much celebration later in the day when China finally added Canada to its "approved destination status".
We are now in the agust company of such distinguished Human Rights Promotors as: Cuba; Burma; Ghana; Pakistan; Sri Lanka; Syria; Uganda; and Zimbabwe. Imagine? Aren't we fortunate.
I was listening to the Business Channel where its guests were unanimous in finding that Harper has been remiss in not pursuing more ties with China. 'We in Canada have lost so much economically due to his misguided approach'.
Well I have news for these so-called experts - it is China that has lost out by pursuing its ruthless agenda. Moreover, they are and industrial giant - and therefore makes things.
Indeed, any country can manufacture items but Canada is in the unique position of having the scarce resources needed make that happen. There is no limit across the world for our valuable resources.
Bottomline, China needs Canada more than we need China.
As I see it..
Note: I asked for input re my recent article on Caledonia and was disappointed by the limited reply. Only 6 came in - 4 in favour of police action and 1 in favour of a status quo approach. The 6th said he was undecided but leaning to taking action. I found his rationale of interest:
"If I was Premier and knew that police action would likely result in the death of human beings I would have trouble making that decision. I understand the importance of enforcing the Rule of Law but to know someone may have to die to enforce it is sobering for me."
"Galagher"
Sunday, November 29, 2009
CALEDONIA
Okay let's get back to some current events...
CALEDONIA
A small quiet city of 10,000 situated on the picturesque Grand River a short drive south from Hamilton.
It's name dates back to the Roman name for Scotland.
It's tranquility though was shattered beginning in late 2005 when the Six Nations Indian Band warned of violence if certain lands in Caledonia were developed as a subdivision.
Violence did soon ensue with one resident of the city so badly beaten he nearly died. Road blocks by the Tribe went up and since then, a general reign of terror has been waged against the populace.
The Province under the stewardship of Dalton McGuinty has taken a hands off approach throughout.
McGuinty also approved the purchase of the contested lands, by the Province, at an inflated value and then more or less ceded those lands over the the Six Nations.
The Indians were rewarded for their lawlessness.
And the hostilities continue.
It is not my intention to use this Blog to incite - there has been enough of that in the local papers of late documenting the terrible suffering of one particular family at the hands of the natives even though their home is situated outside of the disputed boundary.
What I'd rather do is look at this issue from two sides: first from the side of the Premier and then from the side of the Caledonians themselves.
I am not going to consider the concerns of the natives since I strongly believe that they lost the right to our sympathy once they resorted to violence. Plus, for a more thorough look at the native issue, I refer you back to an earlier Blog where I conclude the Reserve System is in need of disbanding.
Okay - The Premier's Position:
CALEDONIA
A small quiet city of 10,000 situated on the picturesque Grand River a short drive south from Hamilton.
It's name dates back to the Roman name for Scotland.
It's tranquility though was shattered beginning in late 2005 when the Six Nations Indian Band warned of violence if certain lands in Caledonia were developed as a subdivision.
Violence did soon ensue with one resident of the city so badly beaten he nearly died. Road blocks by the Tribe went up and since then, a general reign of terror has been waged against the populace.
The Province under the stewardship of Dalton McGuinty has taken a hands off approach throughout.
McGuinty also approved the purchase of the contested lands, by the Province, at an inflated value and then more or less ceded those lands over the the Six Nations.
The Indians were rewarded for their lawlessness.
And the hostilities continue.
It is not my intention to use this Blog to incite - there has been enough of that in the local papers of late documenting the terrible suffering of one particular family at the hands of the natives even though their home is situated outside of the disputed boundary.
What I'd rather do is look at this issue from two sides: first from the side of the Premier and then from the side of the Caledonians themselves.
I am not going to consider the concerns of the natives since I strongly believe that they lost the right to our sympathy once they resorted to violence. Plus, for a more thorough look at the native issue, I refer you back to an earlier Blog where I conclude the Reserve System is in need of disbanding.
Okay - The Premier's Position:
- With Ipperwash still fresh in his mind and the death of the native Dudley George, he has rightfully concluded that if he attempts to 'police' the situation in Caledonia - more death will follow.
- Given this, he has placed the natives above the law and has relegated the citizens of Caledonia to second class status.
- Finally, he is counting on the matter remaining a local concern and thereby hopes the rest of the Province will remains uninterested (read apathetic).
The Caledonians:
- The accounts that I have read indicate that the locals feel betrayed by their own provincial government - that they have been left to violent hands without police protection.
- They cannot understand that a country like Canada, which prides itself on respecting the Rule of Law and the promotion of equal rights for all citizens, can stand back and allow this insurrection to occur.
- Residents have been arrested for trying to protect themselves and their property. Some have been injured - some seriously, and many believe that one or more or their numbers will be killed before this is all settled - if it ever gets settled.
My thoughts:
If the Natives are permitted to get away with violence in Calendonia to achieve their aims - as has been the case here, it sends a message to other Tribes across the country that this is the way to go rather than waste their time with slow legal negotiations.
YOU DECIDE:
Okay, you have heard the arguments - now you decide.
Pretend you are the Premier for a day - what would you do?
a) send the police / army in to break-up the rebellion, or...
b) continue to keep a cap on things and avoid any official conflict for the purpose of avoiding more serious injury and most certainly death.
I look forward to your answers which I will publish at a later date.
"Galagher"
Saturday, November 28, 2009
JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY
It is time that I get back to some current events - there is so much going on - but before I do, I would like to look one more time to the past.
Kennedy was assassinated 46 years ago this week - November 22, 1963. He too was only 46.
For the first time though, I was unable to find any mention of the anniversary in our local papers. And, probably the time has come to relegate this sad date to the past.
But before I do....
As many of you know, I plan to one day get back to my Blog on how things dramatically changed in the 1960's and that even today we are experiencing the fall-out from that time - most of it to our collective detriment. President Kennedy's death followed by Martin Luther King Jr. and his brother Bobby - all in the 60's - was the end of the Age of Innocence and therefore falls into the category of events that forever mark the 1960s as the major turning point - certainly in our time and probably in the last one hundred years and more.
Kennedy had two major accomplishments; one during his lifetime and the other post his death:
The Cuban Missile Crisis was his greatest lifetime achievement. He alone literally avoided an Atomic War.
Kennedy was assassinated 46 years ago this week - November 22, 1963. He too was only 46.
For the first time though, I was unable to find any mention of the anniversary in our local papers. And, probably the time has come to relegate this sad date to the past.
But before I do....
As many of you know, I plan to one day get back to my Blog on how things dramatically changed in the 1960's and that even today we are experiencing the fall-out from that time - most of it to our collective detriment. President Kennedy's death followed by Martin Luther King Jr. and his brother Bobby - all in the 60's - was the end of the Age of Innocence and therefore falls into the category of events that forever mark the 1960s as the major turning point - certainly in our time and probably in the last one hundred years and more.
Kennedy had two major accomplishments; one during his lifetime and the other post his death:
The Joint Chiefs of Staff to a man, strongly recommended that JFK launch air bombardments on the Cuban missile sites. At one point, their discussions amongst themselves was taped and several years ago I listened to this tape which was played on television. The Chiefs were highly critical of Kennedy and viewed him as being nothing more than a young naive pup who was poorly placed to make such a critical decision. Their language was quite 'salty' in nature.
Even his Cabinet was pro military solution, save for one - his brother Bobby the then Attourney General. Kennedy had taken great heat for appointing his brother to Cabinet which the then pundits condemned as blatant Nepotism. But it is doubtful that John Kennedy could have remained resolute against a military strike had it not been for Bobby's sage counsel.
History shows that the Russian Generals, posted to Cuba, had been given orders to launch an Atomic Response to any military action on the part of America. It also shows that their missiles were armed and ready for firing.
Kennedy opted instead for a sea embargo of Cuba which ultimately led to successful negotiations with Kruschev and the rest, as they say, is history.
Kennedy's other great accomplishment occurred as a result of his death.
- The Civil Rights Legislation of 1964/65
This monumental legislation, freed the Blacks from institutional discrimination and was spearheaded by Kennedy's successor, Lyndon Johnson. However, Johnson would not have been able to achieve this success had it not been for Kennedy's death since it was passed into law in his memory.
There was also a negative that flowed from his assassination - the escalation of the Vietnam War.
During Kennedy's tenure, the war in Vietnam was limited in involvement to American Military Advisors. With Kennedy's death, LBJ was able to tap into the outpouring of sympathy to dramatically increase the US military presence in that tragic land.
Indeed, when Bobby was assassinated in June of 1968, he was running for the Democratic Presidential Nomination - against LBJ, on a platform to end that war.
As I said, it is probably time to let President Kennedy go.
This very November, 50 years ago, John Fitzgerarld Kennedy was elected the 35th President of the United States. His star shone brightly; but today it is but a glimmer.
For those of us who lived through his death though, it will continue to shine forever.
As I see it,
"Galagher"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)