Cowboy And Racist And Nativist Donald Trump Picking Fights With Major Allies, Including Great Britain And Canada!

Donald Trump is a “loose cannon”, and most dangerously, is demonstrating his ignorance of foreign policy, and in so doing, alienating our closest allies, including Great Britain and Canada!

British Prime Minister David Cameron and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau have both condemned Trump’s proposal of a Muslim ban, and his loose language about nuclear weapons, NATO, and his cozying up to Russian President Vladimir Putin, while Trump is not, seemingly, concerned that he is alarming nations that have been part of the close and stable friendships that have kept the world on an even keel since World War II.

There has been debate and consideration in the British Parliament and the Canadian Parliament about banning Trump fron entering their nations, although that is highly unlikely to happen, but for the new London Mayor, a Muslim, to condemn Trump for his hate mongering, is not good at all for international relations, as we need to keep a close friendship with other nations.

We cannot afford to have a “cowboy” in foreign affairs, a “Lone Ranger” who will upend the whole international scene, and many inteligent Americans understand that Trump is a very dangerous man, who seems to think that making his business deals somehow qualifies him to engage in diplomacy that includes insulting other nations in the process, and promoting an America First attitude.

If somehow Trump is elected, America is at a greater danger than it has ever been since 1945!

51 comments on “Cowboy And Racist And Nativist Donald Trump Picking Fights With Major Allies, Including Great Britain And Canada!

  1. Mercy May 18, 2016 10:54 am

    Why are you using the word cowboy as a pejorative term? I could see foreigner that despise America using it that way but not an American. Cowboys are not dangerous crazy people. And I say this as someone who does not like Trump’s economic protectionist proposal among other things.

  2. Ronald May 18, 2016 12:04 pm

    Mercy, I mean “cowboy” as a term used to mean “gun slinger” in the Old West, and in international affairs, someone who is radical in his approach to foreign affairs, and thinks military force is always the answer, rather than measured diplomacy.

    Trump’s rhetoric and aggressiveness qualify him as a “cowboy” who is reckless and dangerous!

  3. Mercy May 18, 2016 12:12 pm

    I guess I am too sensitive. I would need to go to a “safe space” to protect myself from such micro-aggression..LOL

  4. Ronald May 18, 2016 12:25 pm

    HAHA, that is hilarious! LOL

  5. Mercy May 19, 2016 10:54 am

    When Obama used his pen and phone, when he was hailed for getting things done when Congress didn’t not act according to his wishes, when he was called a man of “action”, when he was regarded as the true representative of the people with almost unlimited authority to act for the “good” of the people, when people hailed him as the “anointed one” and when he proclaimed “we are just a few days away from fundamentally transforming America” (that is not the President’s job, Presidents are not elected to fundamentally transform America), I don’t recall anyone from the left complaining. As long as the “changes” headed far left, as long as we created an ever more bigger bureaucracy and empowered more bureaucrats under the guise of “empowering” the people, and took wealth away from some Americans to “redistribute/hand out” to other Americans everything was fine and dandy and we welcomed the pen, the phone and the edicts that came along with it. Screw Congress we were told! Now Trump comes along having the same mindless fanatical followers as Obama had and the left is up in arms and all of a sudden they recall Tocqueville, the Constitution and the separation of powers? You just gotta be kidding! Whenever conservatives cited either Tocqueville, Bastiat, Burke, Locke and other classic liberals, warning about democratic majoritarian mob mentality and putting as an example the excesses of the French Revolution, they were laughed at! They had to get with the times, they were told! This is the 21st century, what are you doing citing long gone dead people! And now we have to read this leftist at the Washington Post lecturing on Tocqueville and reminding us of the French Revolution and Napoleon? This is just too much.Maybe the last 8 yrs were the american equivalent of the Jacobin period and now we have to endure a Napoleon. Conservatives tried to warn you, but you just wouldn’t listen; for every action there is a reaction. Now it may be too late and the time for prudence may have passed…

  6. Ronald May 19, 2016 11:21 am

    Mercy, trying to compare Obama and his promotion of necessary reforms of social and economic justice to Donald Trump and his fascism is totally preposterous!

    Obama has done no harm to anyone in promoting the kinds of changes he has brought about.

    For you to legitimize that 95 percent of the growth of the national income is going to the top one percent due to the tax policies of Reagan and Bush II, and to see that “redistribution” as you term it is unconscionable, makes me wonder how you can justify the GOP destroying the middle class and further victimizing the poor!

    I do not have the time or desire to continue to debate you, as I have better things to do, so I will leave it to others to fight with you,as any humane person would clearly see you as too typical of libertarians, which is why they will NEVER gain control of our government!

  7. Mercy May 19, 2016 11:51 am

    Social and economic justice? Proponents of “social justice” are unduly modest. What they are seeking to correct are not merely the deficiencies of society, but of the cosmos. What they call social justice encompasses far more than any given society is causally responsible for. Crusaders for social justice seek to correct not merely the sins of man but the oversights of God or the accidents of history. What they are really seeking is a universe tailor-made to their vision of equality. They are seeking cosmic justice. But the rule of law, on which a free society depends, is inherently incompatible with cosmic justice. Laws exist in all kinds of societies, from the freest to the most totalitarian. But the rule of law– a government of laws and not of men, as it used to be called– is rare and vulnerable. You cannot redress the myriad inequalities which pervade human life by applying the same rules to all or by applying any rules other than the arbitrary dispensations of those in power. Those devoted to cosmic justice are not trying to destroy the rule of law. They are not trying to undermine the American republic. They are simply trying to produce “gender equity,” institutions that “look like America” or a thousand other goals that are incompatible with the rule of law, but corollaries of cosmic justice. Those who seek cosmic justice must try to justify it politically as meeting traditional concepts of justice. A failure to achieve the new vision of justice must be represented to the public and to the courts as “discrimination.” Tests that register the results of innumerable inequalities must be represented as being the cause of those inequalities or as deliberate efforts to perpetuate those inequalities by erecting arbitrary barriers to the advancement of the less fortunate.
    In short, to promote cosmic justice, they must misrepresent what is happening as violations of traditional justice– as understood by others who do not share their vision. Nor do those who make such claims necessarily believe them themselves. As Joseph Schumpeter once said: “The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie.”
    Ironically, the quest for greater economic and social equality is promoted through a far greater inequality of political power. If rules cannot produce cosmic justice, only raw power is left as the way to produce the kinds of results being sought. In a democracy, where power must gain public acquiescence, not only must the rule of law be violated or circumvented, so must the rule of truth. However noble the vision of cosmic justice, arbitrary power and shameless lies are the only paths that even seem to lead in its direction.

  8. Southern Liberal May 19, 2016 12:48 pm

    The Bible speaks about social justice. That’s part of what shapes my politics.

  9. Ronald May 19, 2016 12:57 pm

    Thank you, Southern Liberal, but then the Bible has Socialist and liberal tendencies, unless one chooses to state otherwise! LOL HAHAHA!

  10. Mercy May 19, 2016 1:08 pm

    The Bible is not about a form of government, or about how government should act. It is about how you, the individual should act. And no one is against any of that. The Bible is about individual salvation and goodness, it is not a political platform, it is not about government. It is not a governing political document. If you want that, then look at the Koran.

  11. Ronald May 19, 2016 1:23 pm

    We liberals and progressives do not wish to accept the Koran or the Bible, but rather common decency and fair treatment for all, and that is the purpose of government, to prevent abuses by people with wealth or ulterior motives to exploit the rest of society for their own benefit, rather than the betterment of society as a whole!

  12. Mercy May 19, 2016 2:20 pm

    The government of the United States was founded on the assertion that the primary purpose of its government is to secure and protect the inalienable rights of individuals that were endowed by the Creator.
    The only legitimate purpose of government is to secure the rights that you already have as a free-willed creation of God. The purpose of government should always be to secure our rights! Government is not to be an agent of control over our lives. When government’s highest calling is protection of its people’s right to life, liberty and property, the result will be that the common good is significantly advanced.
    It doesn’t work in the reverse. When governments view the common good as being more important than individual rights, as does any authoritarian/totalitarian state whether it be progressive/socialist/communist or fascist, then both the basic human rights and the common good will suffer. The common good will suffer to the degree that the basic human rights are denied.

    Speaking for the United States government in an address to the United Nations [on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights], a ranking state department official [said]:
    “We view human rights as limitations upon the power of the state. Based on principles set forth in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, our…rights are timeless, unalterable, and not subject to the intellectual or political fashions of the day. They establish the state as the servant of the people and not the other way around…”
    The official continued,
    “The past 25 years have seen a tendency to redefine human rights [as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights]…In contrast to our notion of human rights as limitations upon the power of the state, these ‘rights’ would augment the power of the state, make individuals more dependent, and could not be enforced by an independent judiciary.”

    “The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results” – James Madison

  13. Rustbelt Democrat May 19, 2016 2:41 pm

    Southern Liberal – The only thing in the Bible that Cheap Labor Conservatives like is when God throws temper tantrums.

  14. Southern Liberal May 19, 2016 2:50 pm

    To put it in simpler terms, what I’m saying is that I base my vote on which party cares for the down trodden in our country and that party is definitely not the faux-Christian Teapublicans.

  15. Ronald May 19, 2016 3:05 pm

    Mercy, I assume you DO realize that as great as Madison was, he was a slave owner and born to wealth, and out to protect the landed class, not concerned about the masses, except how they might intrude on his wealth and property?

  16. Rustbelt Democrat May 19, 2016 4:30 pm

    Mercy and all these other trolls we’ve had here fell asleep during history class.

  17. Mercy May 19, 2016 4:44 pm

    Ah yes, and the United States was illegitimately created by 56 evil white men who “pledged their life, fortunes and sacred honor” for its creation. Yes they were not poor men, they were not wild eyed pirates, they were men of means, wealthy men most of them and they had enjoyed a life of ease and luxury in their personal living. They were not hungry men and certainly not terrorist, not irresponsible malcontents, not fanatical incendiaries. They were prosperous , wealthy landowners. These men were substantially secured in their prosperity, they had everything to lose. But they new that liberty was much more important than security. And because of these men, we are both here living in the greatest country on the face of the earth.

  18. Ronald May 19, 2016 5:09 pm

    Mercy, you are correct, but you have also bought the propaganda that they were doing what they did for us, rather than simply to govern themselves instead of the British governing them.

    Going by your interpretation, it is perfectly fine to keep a small elite in control so they can do what they wish without interference by the rest of us, who have to be happy with the crumbs we get, while they get 95 percent of all growth in wealth and property.

    That is not the America I live in or wish to live in. God forbid that they consider the needs of the vast majority of the population!

  19. Princess Leia May 19, 2016 5:10 pm

    I guarantee you that his “safe space” to protect himself from “aggression” is some Faux News related website.

  20. Pragmatic Progressive May 19, 2016 5:17 pm

    I think it’s very telling that he uses the same words, phrases, etc. as the other trolls that have been here.

  21. Mercy May 19, 2016 5:39 pm

    So contrary to a man that was born into slavery, Fredrick Douglass, who was able to realize that his youthful (and I would say understandable) condemnation of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers as a villainous compromise with slavery, was wrong and misguided some 21st century educated men seem not to agree with Douglass and see the Founders as selfish elitist men who only cared about themselves and their status.
    The charge of a pro-slavery Constitution was “a slander upon [the] memory” of the Framers, he contended; “interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a glorious liberty document.” Consider “the constitution according to its plain reading,” Douglass continued, “and I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it. On the other hand it will be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery.”
    In his speech at an Independence Day celebration in 1852 Douglass said, “The signers of the Declaration of Independence were brave men. They were great men too…. They were statesmen, patriots and heroes.” In his discerning view, however, the main source of their greatness—the virtue that enabled them to be more than revolutionaries, the Founders of a great republic—inhered not in their bravery but in their dedication to the “eternal principles,” the “saving principles,” set forth in the unique revolutionary document they dared to sign. “Your fathers, the fathers of this republic, did, most deliberately…and with a sublime faith in the great principles of justice and freedom, lay deep the corner-stone of the national superstructure, which has risen and still rises in grandeur around you…. Mark them!”
    Furthermore after the terrible Dred Scott decision (thank you activist SCOTUS) he said,
    “I base my sense of the certain overthrow of slavery, in part, upon the nature of the American Government, the Constitution, the tendencies of the age, and the character of the American people…. I know of no soil better adapted to the growth of reform than American soil. I know of no country where the conditions for affecting great changes in the settled order of things, for the development of right ideas of liberty and humanity, are more favorable than here in these United States…. The Constitution, as well as the Declaration of Independence, and the sentiments of the founders of the Republic, give us a plat-form broad enough, and strong enough, to support the most comprehensive plans for the freedom and elevation of all the people of this country, without regard to color, class, or clime.”

  22. Ronald May 19, 2016 6:41 pm

    Mercy, your quoting Frederick Douglass is great, but does not take away from the reality that today in America, the opportunity to advance oneself is most endangered since the Gilded Age, and that is why the Progressive Era and New Deal and Great Society evolved, as essential to promote the virtues of our nation.

    Massive acquisition of wealth in the name of worship of money is not what our republic is all about! It is the promotion of equality, freedom and equal opportunity! It is also concerning oneself with the rights of labor, protection of the environment, and giving non whites and women the same level playing field as white males!

  23. Pragmatic Progressive May 19, 2016 7:09 pm

    Besides the Professor, and occasionally a poster named Paul, the only men you’ve encountered here recently are Rustbelt Democrat and Former Republican.

  24. Mercy May 20, 2016 10:01 am

    Ronald, imagine a political system so radical as to promise to move more of the poorest 20% of the population into the richest 20% than remain in the poorest bracket within the decade? You don’t need to imagine it. It’s called the United States of America.

  25. Paul Doyle May 20, 2016 10:02 am

    Can we wait to see what the “Commander in Tweet” has to say about this? The Donald offers so much wisdom in 140 characters or less…

  26. Ronald May 20, 2016 10:16 am

    Mercy, we are far from radical.

    The Democrats are not radical, just humane and caring about what the goal of government should be, to protect, defend, and also allow improvement in living standards.

    Apparently, you have no issue with how much percentage of the wealth is in the hands of the top one percent. That is NOT very religious or humane, and the fact that you can live with that reality says legions!

  27. Mercy May 20, 2016 10:33 am

    Where did I say you were a radical?

  28. Mercy May 20, 2016 10:34 am

    The welfare state is not really about the welfare of the masses. It is about the egos of the elites.

  29. Ronald May 20, 2016 10:36 am

    I know you did not say I was radical, which I most certainly am not.

    As far as the issue of poverty, to leave 95 percent of new income growth in the top one percent is asking for social turmoil, clear and simple!

  30. Mercy May 20, 2016 10:42 am

    Ronald, I suggest you check out a Treasury Department study titled “Income Mobility in the U.S. from 1996 to 2005.” It uses income-tax data, showing that people who were in the top 1 percent in 1996 had their incomes fall — repeat, fall — by 26 percent by 2005. What about the other studies that seem to say the opposite? Those are studies of income brackets, not studies of the flesh-and-blood human beings who are moving from one bracket to another over time. More than half the people who were in the top 1 percent in 1996 were no longer there in 2005.
    Empirical studies that follow income brackets over time repeatedly reach opposite conclusions from studies that follow individuals. But people in the media, in politics, and even in academia, cite statistics about income brackets as if they were discussing what happens to actual human beings over time. All too often when liberals cite statistics, they forget the statisticians’ warning that correlation is not causation.
    When statistics showed that black applicants for conventional mortgage loans were turned down at twice the rate for white applicants, the media went ballistic crying racial discrimination. But whites were turned down almost twice as often as Asian Americans — and no one thinks that is racial discrimination. Facts are not liberals’ strong suit. Rhetoric is

  31. Ronald May 20, 2016 10:48 am

    Mercy, facts are NOT the strong suit of conservatives–as witness Fox News Channel and all of the right wing think tanks, that spew forth lies and mistruths, and justify income disparity the worst since the Gilded Age.

    If you leave it to the right, just keep on promoting unregulated capitalism and harm the working class and the poor ever more, without any conscience!

  32. Mercy May 20, 2016 11:03 am

    Ronald, mmm I wonder when was the last time we had “unregulated” capitalism? “Unregulated” banks? “Unregulated” financing sector?

  33. Mercy May 20, 2016 11:05 am

    We have all heard the old saying that giving a man a fish feeds him only for a day, while teaching him to fish feeds him for a lifetime. Redistributionists give him a fish and leave him dependent on the government for more fish in the future.
    If the redistributionists were serious, what they would want to distribute is the ability to fish, or to be productive in other ways. Knowledge is one of the few things that can be distributed to people without reducing the amount held by others.
    That would better serve the interests of the poor, but it would not serve the interests of politicians who want to exercise power, and to get the votes of people who are dependent on them.

  34. Ronald May 20, 2016 12:41 pm

    I agree that education is the best way forward, no question about that, but if you leave it to the right wing, they would prefer ignorance, and are regularly cutting education funding.

    So you are correct, but believe me, we have very little regulation of corporations, thanks to the power of the right wing!

  35. Mercy May 20, 2016 5:00 pm

    Rustbelt: You are going all the way back to 1979-81 to look a Trump’s returns? Back to the Carter years? Are you kidding? LOL!! Talk about being desperate…

  36. Ronald May 20, 2016 5:06 pm

    Mercy, Rustbelt Democrat is trying to point out how the wealthy evade taxes and do not give a damn about middle class and poor Americans. You can be sure he has evaded taxes all of his life, and is deserving of being in federal prison! But of course, he has prominent lawyers to prevent that!

    Trump is also encouraging people NOT to pay taxes, and to defy the IRS and destroy it, and then the country will truly go down the tubes!

    Paying taxes is patriotic and part of being a citizen, and to fight paying taxes, when one has so much wealth, is a sign of how Trump really feels about the “peons”—us!

  37. Princess Leia May 20, 2016 5:08 pm

    So, basically Trump pays no taxes—yet he talks about building expensive walls and an even more expensive military, paid for by others, with not a cent of the money contributed by him. How can we allow this fraud to keep trying to fool America?! He doesn’t even want to contribute to the public pause. He talks about America’s roads and bridges and airports in a state of disgrace but is not interested in contributing to making them better. He says he is $10 billion dollar rich; but pays not a cent in taxes. Amazing. Even more amazing: the media is not focusing on this but instead treating him as a celebrity.

    Trump behaves like a king. He accuses others of the very thing he does so frivolously–like infidelity, tax-dodging, lies, etc, etc, and the media laps it all up and gives him a back to back coverage while ignoring other competitors.

  38. Rational Lefty May 20, 2016 5:14 pm

    SCOTUS Justice Oliver Wendell Homes, Jr. famously observed in 1904 that “taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.” This article clearly articulates the value Mr. Trump places on the society he seeks to lead.

  39. Ronald May 20, 2016 5:21 pm

    Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your strong condemnation of Trump on taxes, but I gather Mercy is not upset.

    After all, government is evil, and should only be there to promote selfishness and greed of the elite, correct, Mercy?

  40. Mercy May 20, 2016 5:29 pm

    Ronald: Very little regulations? You cannot be serious. In the last 20 years 81,883 final rules have been issued. That’s more than 3,500 per year or about nine per day. The total costs for Americans to comply with federal regulations reached $1.806 trillion in 2012. For the first time, this amounts to more than half of total federal spending. It is more than the GDPs of Australia, Canada or Mexico. The ratio of regulations issued to laws passed by Congress and signed by the president – stood at 29 for 2012. That’s 127 new laws and 3,708 new rules – or a new rule every 2 ½ hours. Regulatory costs amount to $14,678 per family – 23 percent of the average household income of $63,685 and 30 percent of the expenditure budget of $49,705 and more than receipts from corporate and personal income taxes combined. Combined with $3.53 trillion in federal spending, Washington’s share of the economy now reaches 34.4 percent. The 2015 Federal Register stood at 80,260 pages. Although shy of 2010’s all-time record-high 81,405 pages and 201’s 81,247 pages, it is the third highest. ( ) That’s over 2,595,817 pages since 1976!

  41. Mercy May 20, 2016 5:40 pm

    I had no idea tax deductions were illegal. Let’s do away with the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit, or the Tax Deductions for Teachers, shall we? Or how about we do away with the over $1 trillion in tax deductions we have. Anyone wants to propose that?

  42. Mercy May 20, 2016 5:46 pm

    No matter how much people on the left talk about compassion, they have no compassion for the taxpayers.

  43. Mercy May 20, 2016 5:52 pm

    “It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.” This is because investors’ “efforts to avoid tax liabilities” make “certain types of less productive activity more profitable than more valuable undertakings,” and this in turn “inhibits our growth and efficiency.”
    – JFK

  44. Mercy May 20, 2016 5:57 pm

    Ronald, since this is an era when many people are concerned about ‘fairness’ and ‘social justice,’ what is your ‘fair share’ of what someone else has worked for?

  45. Ronald May 20, 2016 6:19 pm

    We should go back to the tax rates of Eisenhower, when the economy did very well, or an alternative of Nixon, both GOP Presidents.

    Reagan and Bush II are the two Presidents who set up and legitimized the New Gilded Age, lowering taxes on the wealthy too much, but the American people not having the benefit!

  46. Mercy May 23, 2016 3:01 pm

    Ronald: Eisenhower era tax rate? Meaning a top rate of 91%? OK. So then we would also go back to having 24 different tax brackets (from 20% for those earning between 0 and $2000 to 91% for those earning more that $200,000 in 1954 dollars) not the current 7 brackets? In other words, are you proposing that everyone pay federal income tax, meaning there would no longer be 47% (yes the infamous 47%) who pay no federal income tax? (and I am only talking about federal income tax, not state or sales or SS taxes).
    That said, the top effective tax rate in the 1950’s was closer to 50% because of tax loopholes in an economy experiencing some amazing one-off, postwar tailwinds.
    Nevertheless, for the duration of Eisenhower’s presidency, that rate affected individuals making $200,000 or more per year or couples making $400,000 and above per year.
    In 2015 dollars, that’s roughly $1.7 million for an individual and $3.4 million for a couple.
    The top rate in 2015 is 39.6%, applied to single people making $413,200 or more per year, or married couples filing jointly making $464,850 or more annually. If we went back to 1954, single people making the equivalent of $413,200 would be in a 72% tax bracket, while a couple making $464,850 would end up in a 75% bracket.
    I suggest Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders adopt your idea and put it in writing and whoever wins should campaign on going back to 24 brackets and those rates.
    I for one want a tax policy that focuses on revenues. Raising taxes will not raise revenues as a percentage of GDP. As a matter of fact revenues decline whenever you have across the board tax hike. Also if you adopt the FDR-Eisenhower era rates the so called rich, that the left despises, will end up contributing less overall to the revenue pie. For example, the percentage of taxes paid by the highest quintile of income earners has steadily gone up since 1980. In 1980 when the top rate was 70%, during the JFK-Nixon-Carter era rates, the top 20% paid about 55% of all income taxes. Today, it’s just shy of 70%. The same goes for the top 1%, which went from about 15% in 1980 to just shy of 30% today. So if you want the top income earners to contribute more to the revenue pie, I don’t know why you would want to raise the rate? Unless, as Obama said during the 2008 primary debate with Hillary, you want to do it for “fairness”. But fairness for who? The rich end up contributing less overall with those FDR-Eisenhower era tax rates. Finally if you want to go back to the 1954 era tax rate I have a counter offer, let’s do that plus we go back to the 1954 era federal welfare and defense spending percentages! Or better yet,why don’t we go back to the original 1913 brackets and rates. The ones that were sold to the American people when they voted to have a federal income tax. Seven brackets and seven rates:1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, 5%, 6% and 7% the top rate! Notice how the left always says the want to go back to the old rates, that tax cut is like giving money back to the rich. Well I say, until the top rates goes below 7% the government isn’t giving anything back to the rich, quite the contrary, at the current 39.6% the government still has a long way to go to get to 6.9% rate! Only then can one say the government is giving money to the rich.

  47. Former Republican May 25, 2016 9:09 am

    I second what the Professor said about the tax rates.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.