Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Supporting our soldiers in Afghanistan

For the opportunist leftist people out there, let me remind you that despite the fact that our soldiers are facing dangers, they're nonetheless proud to serve Canada. In addition to this pride, they also feel that their efforts will bring good things to Afghan people. It's deplorable that some Canadians ignore the raison d'être of our country's mission in Afghanistan.

First of all, Canada doesn't do this mission to serve the imperialistic ambition of the USA. In fact, it's part of Canada's responsibility to put some order in the world when it's really worth it. As opposed to what is being done in Iraq by the Americans, Canada took the wise decision to adopt a step-by-step approach to help the Afghan people. As a result of that, we're now starting to see that the efforts made by Canada's troops is starting to pay off.

In fact, while the order is gradually being established through the training of Afghan soldiers and policemen by Western military officers, we can say that the humanitarian aspect of this mission is not as sombre as it looks. The Western coalition succeeded into building schools and improving Afghan infrastructures although the Talibans attacked a few of them.

Furthermore, since the Talibans were kicked out the Afghan political institutions, women are gradually starting to see the colour of freedom and children can now study. Needless to say that it has been reported that many people feel free despite the flaws reported in the Afghan laws. With a good collaboration with the Afghan government, we Westerners can help Afghanistan to improve its political institutions progressively.

Feel free to say what you want, but Canada, since the beginning of this mission on Afghan soil in 2001, is, and has always been, in war. As a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), this country has an oath to respect. In fact, the members of the NATO are to bring stability, order and freedom for the oppressed people with a set of clearly elaborated objectives. Hopefully, things are not being done perfunctorily in Afghanistan when you look at what the Americans are trying to do in Iraq with a very hasty manner.

While I'm supporting Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, I can see that some of my fellow compatriots cowardly abandon, in a manner of speaking, our soldiers as if they were a big piece of trash. As opposed to what some people believe, this war against the Taliban is not a war that conceals colonialist objectives; Canada will eventually withdraw from Afghanistan when the mission will be over.

Sunday, October 29, 2006

The NATO's role in Afghanistan

In his column published in the Edmonton Sun, Doug Beazley is asking us if the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) will abandon its mission in Afghanistan. One might be tempted to say that we can't confirm it for the moment if we look at the International Security Assistance Force's (ISAF) key figures.

However, a careful look at the present situation that prevails in the international political sphere probably gives us a hint that some members of the NATO might leave Canada on its own with the Afghan task that is getting more complicated than it were.

According to the latest source from the NATO (5th of October 2006), there are 31,000 soldiers serving in Afghanistan. In my opinion, the number of soldiers is certainly going to diminish. In fact, while Beazley indicated in his column that there are 5,000 American soldiers in Afghanistan, we can guess that this number will go down, because the USA is still stuck with its war in Iraq.

Furthermore, the harder the USA finds it to control the quagmire in Iraq, the more they'll have to deploy troops in this war that can be described as an ideological failure from the Bush Administration.

In addition to the USA's growing concern about Iraq, you can add to that Pakistan's unwillingness to help its "Westerna allies" in Afghanistan. In spite of the look of Pakistani president Pervez Musharaf's boring speeches, we can really have some doubts that Pakistani troops are keeping an eye on their national borders, because some Talibans certainly succeeded into going in Pakistan.

The question is now: if spreading democracy in Iraq doesn't work quite well, will it work for Afghanistan? The Canadian mission in this country is now described as a war in the public opinion, because more Canadian soldiers are dying.

Obviously, the mission in Afghanistan looks good according to Stephen Harper's official discourse on the mission. However, behind every discourses, there are real facts that are often concealed. Canada's Prime minister probably believes that he knows why it is part of Canada's interest to give its word to the Afghan people. Despite that fact, does the public knows why it is part of this country's interest to sacrifice soldiers for a cause that looks worthless for most people in Canada?

Some Canadian columnist probably does a good job by telling their opinion on this war, but it's up to Canada's Prime minister Stephen Harper to tell why our compatriots fight in Afghanistan. Are our fellow Canadians do it to serve the USA's imperialistic ambition or are they doing something that is really worth it? The more Stephen Harper remains silent on the so-called "legitimacy" of the mission in Afghan, the more the public opinion will despise this war.

Friday, October 27, 2006

Stand up for freedom of speech

"I think, therefore I am."
René Descartes (1596-1650)

Today's column was supposed to deal with the potential weakness of Iraqi's federalism, but today is quite a special day. Indeed, as I'm surfing on the net, I can see that Amnesty International is exhorting all bloggers "to stand up for freedom ahead of world meeting on future of Internet". Thus, I'm joining the bloggers who, just like me, believe in the legitimacy of freedom of speech not only on Internet, but also in the world.

As Westerners, we often take for granted that our way of life values individual freedom of speech. However, some countries of our civilization (that I'm not going to name) exert a subtely coercive pressure on their citizens. Is this normal? No. Hopefully, we don't live in China, Vietnam, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran or Cuba (other countries can be named).

To a certain extent, a government can lay on its population a collective way of life in order to maintain the law in order. Furthermore, the maintenance of the law and order evidently aims to create a civilly coherent society. However, an act that aims to restrict freedom of speech is absolutely condemnable. No government has the right to impose something that it regards as an axiom.

As French philosopher René Descartes said it, a human being is defined by its capacity to think on his/her own. Therefore, it is totally absurd that a government tells to its population how to think, because human beings are just so different. In fact, subjectivity is the core element of our own identity. Every single person on earth has a specific way to judge and criticize things.

Obviously, the notion of freedom of speech implies that no matter what an individual does, says or writes, they're solely responsible of their own opinion. Never am I suggesting that we live in a society in which every agrees with each other. As a matter of fact, even though an opinion can polarize a society, it's clear that our freedom of speech can only be maintained through a civilized dialog between someone who upholds a specific opinion and those who don't concur with this opinion.

The access to freedom of speech is above all a right. Never shall freedom of speech be granted as a privilege. It is something that you fundamentally possess without paying for it. In fact, in comparison with most things that you see, no financial consuming power is required to feel free to express any given opinion. Buying a car and criticizing something are two different things. All in all, the only thing that you need to do to express an opinion is to use your judgement and your own analysis. These are things that come from your desire to express your personal sentiment; not from your wallet, mind you.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

Gravel's religious hypocrisy

On the 27th of November, two by-elections (in the ridings of Repentigny and London North Centre) will be organized to attribute to any political parties two empty seats of Canada's House of Commons. However, at the light of what we saw, we can really wonder why Raymond Gravel will be the candidate in the riding of Repentigny for the Bloc Québécois (BQ) to replace the late Benoît Sauvageau.

Raymond Gravel
Raymond Gravel

Raymond Gravel made a reputation for himself in Quebec for openly displaying his advocacy of same-sex marriages even though he was a priest. However, this priest of Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines declared that once elected, he'll remain loyal to the Catholic Church. This means that he won't approve any bill that doesn't fit into the moral doctrine promoted by the Catholic faith.

What commonly unites Raymond Gravel and the other members of the BQ is his desire to defend the interest of Quebec and also to fuel the Quebecker separatists. However, if Gilles Duceppe knows that his big-shot candidate in the riding of Repentigny wants to be against same-sex marriages, why doesn't Duceppe react?

Gilles Duceppe
Gilles Duceppe

Gravel doesn't understand that the Canadian secular regimes clearly draws a line between the Church and the State. Therefore, Raymond Gravel should know that in the House of Commons, he is most of all a politician and not a priest. In fact, the Canadian laws seek to maintain the law and order in a society that is ethnically and religiously diversified, but Gravel can still be against same-sex marriages if he feels like it. Thus, is it ethically good to remain completely loyal to the Catholic Church as a priest while you're in the House of Commons?

Asking the question is like answering to it. Raymond Gravel is just a liar and most of all a natural born hypocrite. Are the separatists who support Gravel aware that a politician must be loyal to the citizens he's representing? In the media, Raymond Gravel declares that he's supporting the BQ and the opposition parties in their fight against our homophobic Prime minister Stephen Harper.

The other day, he says that he'll adhere to the Catholic doctrine that is defended by the senile and conservative priests of Vatican. If Raymond Gravel really had a little bit of common sense, he must confess to a priest that he definitely lied about his personnal conviction in order to get some media exposure and also to satisfy his so-called political ambition. Either Raymond Gravel advocates the BQ's cause or he stays with the BQ and cast the opprobrium on our dear separatists. After all, the separatists are certainly not fed up to see their comrades say some oddities.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Harper the outsider

At this present moment, Canada's Prime minister Stephen Harper is certainly wishing to have a majority government to promulgate the bill projects that he advocates. Unfortunately, with his stubbornness, he doesn't notice that he's ideologically at odds with most Canadians.

Obviously, Stephen Harper wants to propose a parliamentary vote on the legitimacy of same-sex marriages. Given the political configuration that prevails in the House of Commons, the Conservatives are going to face a humiliating defeat, because they form a minority government. Our Prime minister doesn't understand that most Canadians consider that the debate on the rights of homosexual people is history. In fact, most Canadians are just fed up to hear Harper's discourse that conceals a religious perspective.

As time goes by, it becomes very clear that Stephen Harper's political party didn't succeed to grow up, ideologically speaking. It's true that being in politics means making choices. Nonetheless, Stephen Harper should learn that the choices that are made must be in touch with the things that are ethically accepted by a society. The difference between ethics and moral is clear: moral draws a line between what is good and what is wrong. On the other hand, ethics is a free critical judgement made without any intervention of a moral or a religion.

Is homosexuality a crime? The answer is no. A government can certainly tell to its citizens how they must live together in order to maintain the law and order. However, it appears ethically incorrect to abolish the laws on same-sex marriages that were made by the Liberals. Since the government doesn't have its place in the nation's bed, it can't tell to people how to live their love life individually. This is why the abolition of the laws on same-sex marriages is preposterous. This restriction of individual freedom is only meant to satisfy an ideological minority.

These people have the right to benefit from the laws on same-sex marriages as long as these laws don't bother me as an individual. This man probably pretends that he's modern, but some people compare him to an old black-and-white TV. The Tories should think about adopting the strategy of the British Conservative Party led by David Cameron.

By putting aside their inner demons, the British Tories managed to become quite popular because they tried to reach the British's mainstream mentality that keeps evolving. On that note, the more Harper enlarge the ideological chasm that exist between him and the majority of Canadians, the more his dreams for having a majority government will fade. It doesn't take a degree in Canadian politics to understand that many people will be tempted to see the Tories as a group of backwarded people who are against evolution. Just like the American Republican, Harper is playing the political game called "Either you're with me or against me" to a lesser extent.

Monday, October 23, 2006

Video game on the Middle East

Attention everybody, if you don't like to read books or watch boring political thrillers, here's something for you. A Danish video games company will soon release a video game about the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The game that was inspired from reality is called Global Conflicts: Palestine.

In this game, you're playing the role of a young journalist who has to publish a neutral article. During your journey, you must find sources from both sides (i.e. Palestinians as well as Israelis) in order to have a clear and objective knowledge about this conflict. By the way, you can also make your journalist be either pro-Palestinian, pro-Israeli or neutral.

Apparently, the objective of the creators of this game is to make people learn more about this complex conflict. To finish my blog entry, I'm going to leave you with the logo of Serious Games Interactive. Do you have any opinion about this game that will be released in early 2007? To be very honest with you, I'm deeply convinced that the game is so pathetic...

Friday, October 20, 2006

The UN's last hot seat

Actually, the members of the United Nations are trying to put a country from Latin America on the last seat of the Security Council. Venezuela and Guatemala are the countries that are trying to conquer the heart of the UN's state-members. To win this hot seat, one of these countries must obtain the two thirds of the votes, which means 128 votes.

I can hardly imagine what will the discussions look like at the Security Council if Venezuela was elected as the occupier of the last seat that is the object of a vote. Hugo Chávez, the president of Venezuela, probably wants to have a better forum to challenge American president George W. Bush, but his stubbornness will not help him to have a better diplomatic relation with the USA.

Anyway, the vote is now interrupted and it will be done again in five days. What's your opinion about this race between Venezuela and Guatemala for the last hot seat in the UN's Security Council? Maybe other countries from Latin America will show their interest for the last seat in the Security Council. Who knows?

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Ambrose's No Objective Act

A decade ago, Canada signed the Kyoto Protocol when the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) was reigning and the objectives were not fulfilled. Yesterday, in the nation's capital, Environment minister Rona Ambrose announced the release of her government's "made-in-Canada" Clean Air Act that is supposed to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half.

Environment minister Rona Ambrose
Photo Canadian Press

Unfortunately, this plan, "which aims to protect human health and the environment by taking an integrated approach to reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions" according to the Ministry of Environment, will only be meant to cut greenhouse gas emissions in 2050.

As strange as it might look, Ambrose wants the Canadian government to take action in order to secure our environment. However, the Tory government doesn't necessarily notice that the Clean Air Act is a pathetic parliamentary initiative of idleness. The astounding amateurism of the Tories in terms of environment can be reflected in their lack of willingness to set clear national objectives.

After all, does the government really care about Canadians when its major members announced for instance that by 2025, the national targets for the smog and ozone levels will be set? Asking the question is like answering to it. Rona Ambrose took an action just to look good in the public opinion. However, her visible inactivity reflects the lack of initiatives that are meant to really secure the nation's environment. By 2025, the air quality would have worsened and I'll spare you the details about what will happen to Canada's environment in 2050 if the population blindly follow the Tories.

As it was mentioned in the official text about the Clean Air Act, the government wants to deal roughly with the industrial polluters. The problem is that this will only be done in 2010. The improvement of our environment can only be guaranteed if Rona Ambrose tries immediately to set national objectives by dealing with the industrial polluters (i.e. factories, oil producers), the vehicle emissions standards and so on. Unfortunately, this shows us that Prime minister Stephen Harper doesn't want to severely maim the oil industry, because don't forget that some oil magnates are right behind him.

The question is: to deal or not to deal with the industrial polluters, the biggest source of population in Canada? Well, the Conservative Party doesn't want to lose their support coming from the people of the oil industry. This deplorable accommodation with the industrial polluters clearly draws a line between the principles of the Conservative Party and to that of the Canadians. Like we all say:"Enough with this twaddle and start taking action!"

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

It's not made with plastic!

All right, it's confirmed. A backwarded communist country named North Korea and led by an alien (named Kim Jong-Il) succeeded into testing a first nuclear weapon. Do you want to know why the international community knows it? It's because some American scientists detected radioactive particles in the atmosphere over the city of P'unggye.

The scientific analysis also revealed that the explosion was inferior to one kiloton, which is the equivalent of 200 tons of TNT. I don't have a great idea how dangerous 200 tons of TNT can be. Maybe I should try to find a pirate movie that shows it! Ok, this was a joke, mind you. I recently saw a graphic on the news. This graphic shows you how big the explosion was.

By the way, rumour has it that Communist Alien Code-named Kim wants to test a second nuclear bomb according to this article from the Globe and Mail. Comrade Kim, you'll be fired (in the very broad sense of the word). All right, enough remarks for today. Now I'll go back to my homeworks.

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Sanctions against North Korea

North Korea provoked a shock worldwide by leaving the doubt that it has succeeded into testing a nuclear weapon. What will North Korean communist leader Kim Jong-Il do with such a weapon? Obviously, the possession of a nuclear weapon by North Korea is definitely a threat to the stability in North East Asia, because we do believe that North Korea will be tempted to take over the South in order to make the unification of Korea.

Hopefully, according to Thom Shanker and Warren Hoge, the American government doesn't have any intention to attack or occupy North Korea in order to topple the communist government of this backwarded country. This zone will become hotter in terms of violence and the unification of Korea will be more complicated. While several people believe that many countries should have a talk with North Korea, others declared that sanctions must be done.

For instance, the USA affirmed that "international inspections of all cargo moving in and out of North Korea [must be done] to detect weapons-related material" (Shanker and Hoge). These tough measures might affect coastlines and borders from Russia and China.

If American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declares that North Korea will get exposed to sanctions that are “unlike anything that they (North Korea) have faced before”, how far will her country go besides punishing, with the American banking laws, banks overseas which have activities with North Korea? The great superpowers might believe that their sanctions against North Korea will make this country kneel down.

However many embargos in the past have enormously affected the population of North Korea. The solution will consists into indirectly attacking the North Korean bureaucracy and the military elite, because when you deal with a problem, you must attack its roots. Keeping an eye on the banks might be a good start, but the USA should know that American oversea banks are complying with the banking laws of the country in which they are.

Finally, even though other countries such as China, Russia, France, South Korea and Great Britain are involved in the talks, it is the duty of each country of the international community to not only stay united against North Korea, but also to severely deal with North Korea in economic activities such as banking with their respective national laws. In the end, it is North Korea, with its stubborness, that is making the eventual unification of Korea more difficult.

Sunday, October 8, 2006

The bilateral relations of China and Japan

We can learn in the French newspaper Le Monde that Shinzo Abe, the Prime minister of Japan, is trying to mend the relation between his country and China in a "historical meeting" that took place today in Beijing, China's national capital city. It appears that Abe used the words of his socialist predecessor Tomiichi Murayama who gave his apologies and expressed his "profound regrets" in 1995 (during the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Second World War) to the Asian countries invaded by Japan during the Second World War (1939-1945).

Shinzo Abe, the Prime minister of Japan.
Japan's Prime minister Shinzo Abe.
Photo Reuters/Claro Cortes Iv

Many people still view Shinzo Abe as a very dangerous nationalist, but he's apparently trying to distance himself from his predecessor Junichiro Koizumi who never managed to have good relations with China and South Korea. Are Abe's apologies sincere or just a lie? We do hope that this attempt to leave Koizumi's political heritage behind will lead us to a conclusion of the talks about the North Korean nuclear program.

Oh yes, you've also heard about the famous Yaksukuni Shrine where 14 Japanese convicted of war crimes are memorialized. I just took a part of an article that I found on the web site of Bloomberg.com. That should give you an idea about what the Chinese and the South Koreans are thinking about this shrine.

Yasukuni's museum says Japan's invasion of Asia 60 years ago was to liberate the region from Western colonial rule and that it was forced into war with the U.S. Koizumi went to the shrine annually during his five-year term.

Koizumi's precedent makes it almost impossible for Abe to yield to Chinese and South Korean requests to not visit the shrine, said Koichi Nakano, a political science professor at Sophia University in Tokyo. In meeting with Abe after snubbing Koizumi, China may have agreed to downplay the issue, Nakano said.

For the moment, it's still a little bit too early to describe the actual state of the bilateral relations between Asia's giants, but let's hope that China and Japan will soon develop real ties, but although Abe is the second Japanese Prime minister who apologized for the Japanese invasion of Asian countries during the Second World War, the relations can only flourish only if the Japanese government changes the way History is being taught in Japanese schools.


Friday, October 6, 2006

Contradiction with André Boisclair

You all remember that one year ago, André Boisclair, the leader of the Parti Québécois (PQ), clearly said that once elected as the Premier of Quebec, he would organize a referendum on the independence of Quebec “as soon as possible”. Now, we can learn in an article of the newspaper La Presse that the leader of the PQ is taking some distance with the political platform that he openly approved and praised last year.

One day André Boisclair says that he would organize a referendum “as soon as possible” once he is elected, which means very quickly, to “make the independence of the nation of Quebec”. Now, he gives to people the feeling that Quebec will stay in the federated State of Canada. Wow, what a contradiction! It seems that the leader of the biggest separatist church in Quebec finally understood that staying in Canada is not that bad. Does he want to make the promotion of staying in Canada?

I can clearly see that the purest and toughest separatists in Quebec will not miss an occasion to pillory André Boisclair in the media. Let’s not make any anticipation, but it looks like some “pure and tough” separatists just won’t take it, because they might perceive Boisclair’s ideological dancing moves as a backstab. Needless to say that the “pure and tough” separatists desperately want Quebec to become independent right now.

Finally, as many people in the blogosphere said it, Boisclair is making a few steps back in order to progress and conquer the electorate. Normally, when you’re starting to back up, you might fall down in a very pathetic way. Will the leader of the biggest separatist church of Quebec be despised by many supporters of the PQ? Will he fall? These questions still remain unanswered, but I do hope that his incapacity to lead a political party and his ludicrous clumsiness will divide the PQ once and for all.

Thursday, October 5, 2006

The US missile-defence program

In a very explosive report that was published yesterday, the members of Canada’s Senate committee declared that this country must join the US missile-defence program. As far as we know, last year, the government formed by Paul Martin (the former leader of the Liberal Party of Canada) declined the proposition that came from George W. Bush.

You might find it very strange, but most members of the Senate have ties with the Liberals. However, it’s not the ties that should tell us the look of the arguments, but rather their report that should tell us why it is part of Canada’s national interest to join such a military program that few citizens here understand. Since I don’t have the report with me, a few recommendations of the Standing Committee on National Security and Defence will be published at the end of this blog entry.

As for the Conservative Party of Canada, they are convinced that Canada should join that American military program since 2004. I do agree that Canada is starting to have more enemies than we think, but the question is: this missile-defence program should protect us against whom in this post-9/11 century? Here are a few recommendations made by the Standing Committee on National Security and Defence. If you want to read more about this, here are two links: an article from La Presse and another one from the Globe and Mail.

  • The military budget for 2012, which is set at $20 billion, is not enough according to the Senate. It is said that an additional increase from $5 to $15 billion must be made.
  • The report mentions that the government must double Canada's financial contribution per inhabitant in terms of international aid.
  • The pre-authorized expenditures amount of the Ministry of Defence should be brought from $30 million to $500 million in order to accelerate the purchase of modern military equipment. The Minister of Defence shouldn't have to go through a long process of cabinet approval.
  • The Artic Sea should be guarded by the Cost Guard and not by the Marines. Moreover, no harbour should be built in the depth of the Artic Sea.
  • The military bases of Goose Bay and Labrador must be closed because they've outlived their usefulness according to what is being said in the Senate's report.

Finally, watch this video and you'll understand why Paul Martin didn't want to follow the USA in the American missile-defence program (joke)...

Monday, October 2, 2006

Look who's talking!

According to a small article published by the news agency Associated Press, it is – once and again – said that Turkey is willing to join the European Union (UE). However, French president Jacques Chirac is exhorting the Turkish government to openly admit the existence of the Armenian genocide before Turkey can fully become a member of the UE. Now, look who's talking!
French president Jacques Chirac
Photo Associated Press

A moronic French politician is giving to himself the permission to give History lessons to the Turkish. A few words for Jacques Chirac: you quirky Frenchmen can't even recognize the fact that you did so many horrible things by colonizing so many countries. Yet, you're giving lessons to other nations! Why doesn't France get kicked out of the EU? The French are reviewing their History by saying that the colonization of some countries was particularly positive (especially in North Africa), just to let you know.

Do these funny French believe that their past colonialism must be a source of pride and glory just like most Japanese? Hey, Jacques, clean your own yard before you look into the yard of your friend. Most of all, don't you ever forget what your ancestors did in Canada, you humorous and silly French!

Sunday, October 1, 2006

Québec Solidaire = crappy party

Since the political party Québec Solidaire (QS) was created, Françoise David, one of the party’s major spoke-persons, never ceased to make ossified socialist-like speeches. According to an article of the Canadian Press published in La Presse, Françoise David, once again, says that the rich people should pay for the economic development of Quebec.

Françoise David

To Mrs. David: the taxation system that prevails in Canada is a progressive tax. Thus, the more a person earns, the more he/she will pay taxes. Think a little bit, Françoise! Before you can distribute the provincial revenue of Quebec to poor people, you must be able to create a source of revenue through industrialization, for instance. Even a little baby would understand that.

If the objective of QS is to brutally restrict the individual freedom by discouraging personal economic initiative, then its two major spoke-persons should start saying it openly. Now, I see that one of my cousins (you know who I'm talking about) won't think about voting for QS. That cousin in question plans to be in business.

Seriously, I’m just getting sick to hear about these two morons from QS (Françoise David and Amir Khadir). While Amir Khadir is reviling these bad Americans on TV and remaining convinced that the 9/11 is an all-American conspiracy, Françoise David is displaying her leftist anger against people who are able to create a source of revenue in Quebec. Now, call that a hell of a serious party!

The provincial taxation system can be reviewed, but who would like to vote for a moronic party led by two annoying leftists who should go back to the 19th century? Once again, Françoise and Amir, shut up and stop displaying your serious paucity of grey matter!

Related Posts with Thumbnails

About This Blog

Lorem Ipsum


  © Blogger templates Newspaper III by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP