Anti-Obama Book Now #2 On New York Times Besteller List

Though still supported by the vast majority of the Mainstream Media, there is far more negative coverage of the disastrous Obama administration than took place in 2008.  It must be giving more than a bit of heartburn to liberals to have an anti-Obama book now sitting at the #2 spot of the New York Times bestseller list:

EXCERPT:

“The Amateur,” a stinging portrayal of President Barack Obama’s leadership, ratcheted up to the New York Times No. 2 bestsellers slot, according to the NYT’s latest list released Wednesday, heading toward the top as Americans’ political convention reading begins in earnest this week. The book was No. 5 on the Aug. 19 list and was No. 1 as recently as July 8.

The book, on the NYT list for 13 weeks, is currently the only book about President Obama in the Top 10 nonfiction hardcover category.

And, “The Amateur” is No. 1 on Amazon’s list of bestsellers in politics and social sciences, and No. 27 on Amazon’s list of all books selling the best so far this year.   

LINK

613 days ago by in News | You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
About the

Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence. -G. Washington

20 Comments to Anti-Obama Book Now #2 On New York Times Besteller List
    • Kat
    • UM, Way off topic here but I thought I could post something that is really sickening to me in a forum that I know gets a lot of readers. If you want to remove it I totally understand. It is a letter I wrote to society I guess on the subject of pedophilia and a warning that a whole lot of us are being in a way I guess, abused by something that has become very popular.

      50 Shades of Grey – Pedophilia Hiding In Plain Sight

      The story of convicted child rapist Gerry Sandusky is well known. So too is the 50 Shades of Grey phenomena, a book that has become so popular among women that some are referring to it as “Mommy Porn” for the masses. That description is actually a lot more disturbing than a lot of folks are currently realizing.

      Yes, 50 Shades is pornography. Like most pornography, the storyline is weak, the characters one-dimensional, while the sex itself graphic, detailed, but formulaic. The underlying theme to 50 Shades is something far more sinister and appalling though than your mere run-of-the-mill porn. It is pedophilia. It is child porn. Kiddie porn.

      Now I know after saying that, many female fans of 50 Shades, many of them mothers, will naturally put up a defense against that kind of description. These women, being mothers, are naturally wired to protect kids. People like Gerry Sandusky are viewed with hatred, revulsion, and disgust. Rightfully so. What mother would want to condone anything having to do with the sexual abuse of children? Of innocents?

      But that is exactly what 50 Shades of Grey is really about. It is a story of a girl being sexually molested, over and over again, by a male figure with all the power, all the control. It is the classic abuse scenario. And mothers are, in some cases, quite literally getting off on it, which takes the disgust of this phenomena to a whole other frightening level.

      So having put that out there, and I hope I haven’t lost any of you just yet. I owe you an explanation after having made that kind of accusation about a book some of you may be reading right now. I’ll start with a bit of background first.

      My professional experience centers around nearly 20 years with Child Protective Services. Over that time, I’ve seen situations that do, literally, keep me up at night. The amount of abuse that is going on in our society, that sexualization of our kids…well basically, what you hear about, what is reported in the news, that is only a small sample of just how large of a problem and the disgusting acts that are going on every day. Kids are being raped. Kids are being abused. Every single day. Over and over and over again.

      I didn’t seek out 50 Shades of Grey. It was brought to my attention by a longtime friend who is also a clinical psychologist at a university. She’s a bit older than me. She grew up in the counter culture era and did her fair share of experimentation of all kinds. So she’s hardly a prude. What she today though is a mother and grandmother. And she’s smart. One of the things that fascinates her is this age of cultural phenomena. How due to technology things now spread so quickly throughout society and become the next big thing at an increasingly rapid pace. She says sometimes this phenomena is pretty much harmless, and other times it can be very damaging to kids and or adults who begin to emulate something out of a need to belong to the “next big thing”.

      Her reaction to 50 Shades of Grey though was much more aggressively negative than anything I could recall her talking about before. It came up because I mentioned it to her offhand. I had seen a couple mentions of it on the news and knowing her interest in cultural trends, asked her about it. She stopped talking, looked right at me, and said the book was about pedophilia. And it was her who then connected it to the Sandusky tragedy where so many young boys had been sexually abused. Sandusky committed his acts of crime under the cover of actually helping youth. That is how he gained access. My friend said 50 Shades was basically the same exact thing. Its cover was a story of a young woman engaging is a very graphic sexual relationship with a somewhat older man.

      The problem for her, and it was a BIG PROBLEM, was that the narrator in the story, was in fact, an underage girl. My friend indicated, based on the use of language in the narration, that this girl was likely no more than 12 or 13 years of age. I made mention that the girl in the story was actually getting ready to graduate college. My friend, a woman with years of experience as a clinical psychologist, whose expertise I had personally witnessed a number of times over the years, shook her head and told me that she would not be able to convince me by simply talking about it. She said I should read the book myself, but do so with the eyes of somebody whose job it had been for many years to try and protect children. As someone who has seen over and over the signs of abuse, and the damages of abuse. Because there are always warning signs. I know that. How many times have I heard people horrified in saying “I can’t believe I didn’t see that” “How couldn’t I have known?” Or even worse, “I knew something wasn’t right but I didn’t want to believe they were capable of doing something like that.”

      I’ll try and summarize my friend’s words at this point as best I can.

      “Sexual predators are cons. They almost always have a cover. It’s that cover which allows them access. 50 Shades of Grey is a con. It now has access to millions of readers. It is a story about abuse from beginning to end. And it’s not just the abuse of a man and a woman – it’s the abuse of a man and a girl.

      When you read it, look for the signs. They are all there.

      The female character has no sexual experience. None. She is given the age of 21, but that age is itself a cover. Her true emotional age is much-much younger. She has never even masturbated. She has never even experienced an orgasm. That alone is one of the greatest attractions to the pedophile. That is the psychology of that kind of act. You get off on taking purity.

      But move from the fact the girl has no sexual experience whatsoever. Now pay attention to her narrative dialogue. Really listen to how she talks. Again, she’s not talking like a young woman, she’s talking like a girl. She talks about cartwheels, and skipping, over and over again it is the language and the imagery of a girl.

      After that this girl has her innocence taken from her. The abuser, the older man, makes her think its her choice. Again, you and I both know that is one of the primary tools of the pedophile. They create an environment where the child feels it’s their idea. It’s what they want. But what happens after that innocence is taken away? Then the abuser becomes more openly abusive. Controlling. In this story he tells the little girl how to speak. What to wear. What to eat. He is Daddy and she is daughter. When you read it read it like a mother who is also a woman who is experienced with the real life tragedy of abuse.

      And there is many more themes about that abuse in this book. There is spanking and the use of Baby oil. Why baby oil? Think about it. The girl wears pigtails. She complains that he is treating he like a child. He says she acts like a child. There is even a scene where the abuser creates a situation to take her innocence from her again. He rips out her tampon and engages in forceful sex yet again. Her hymen is ripped, and the bloody remnants of it are again symbolized in an act of pedophile rape.

      She went on to say there are women now defending the book, and she understands that, but it concerns her. A great deal, because she is absolutely convinced the book is purposely advocating the raping of a child and attempting to normalize that atrocity.

      So, I left that conversation thinking maybe my friend was exaggerating. I had a hard time believing something so popular could actually have such a sinister and revolting theme, and while I respected her expertise and experience, thought this time she had to be seeing something that just wasn’t there.

      I got the book, I sat down, and I read it.

      The first thing that struck me was how poor the writing was. It wasn’t just bad. It was horrible. But horrible writing is no crime, (thank goodness or I would have been put away a long time ago) and it doesn’t make the content of the story evil. But in my reading of it, just like my friend said, the theme of child abuse, of pedophilia, was right there in plain sight. I remember being told a long time ago that sometimes the best way to hide something is in plain site. That is what 50 Shades of Grey is really doing.

      The main character had no sexual experience. None. She was an innocent. She was a kid who had just had her first drink of alcohol. No way that was an accident by the author. That author had to have purposely made her, despite her given age of 21, by any other measure, a little girl. At that point, it struck me as odd. In my business, we call that a warning signal. A sign we may have a problem.

      From there, just like my friend had warned, it got worse. Much worse. And she was right, her telling me about it did not have the impact of me reading it myself with eyes open. She had given me the signs to look for, and as I turned the pages, those signs confirmed it over and over again.

      The narration, which is the voice of the girl talking to the reader, was the voice of a little girl. It’s unmistakable. There is very little emotional maturity and absolutely no sexual maturity. She is seduced by this man in the very same way a pedophile seduces a child. The male character is Gerry Sandusky. He makes a show of his money, his power, the things he can buy for her, but while this is going on, we are reading the thoughts of a child. We are reading the seduction of a little girl by a pedophile. She is almost completely powerless. She is naïve even for a teenager, and certainly much much more naïve than a college student. She is incapable of even making the most simple of every day decisions and must be told what to do by her abuser, who in turn though spends a lot of time and effort convincing this child this is really what she wants. I’ve seen this before. Too often. Too many times. And it always leaves me sickened.

      We are reading child pornography. Remove the false age of the girl, which has no basis in reality, and what we are actually reading is the abuse of a little girl.

      The main character is described in pigtails, given words like “Holy Cow” “down there”, “jeez” “double crap” she can’t operate a computer (but is supposedly a college graduate), describes skipping and doing cartwheels, repeatedly says she is made to feel like a child, has her imaginary friend (inner goddess) feels shame, is spanked and slathered in BABY OIL, told what to say, what to eat, what to do, until finally and sadly so predictably, is physically beaten. (But she returns to him soon after, which is again, a very common theme of abuse, including pedophilia)

      And beyond all of this evidence there is the fact that the male character is himself a product of sexual abuse at the hands of a pedophile. The girl whose thoughts we listen in on as she is being abused, recognizes this aspect of the male abuser, but apparently, is too naïve or unwilling to realize she has continued this cycle of abuse herself. (Which again reinforces the idea that she is actually herself just a child) There is no way the author did this by accident. She puts out the theme of pedophilia openly, therefore hiding it in plain sight.

      People who have had to deal with the real world of sexual abuse of children will understand this perhaps more easily than others. How the pedophile is so often themselves victims of earlier abuse. They enter society, they become fathers or mothers, but so often they too become abusive. They seek out dominance, control, and the taking of innocence just as it was taken from them. Those who were once abused, become the abuser. It is the sad sick and tragic cycle of pedophilia.

      With 50 Shades of Grey this abnormal condition is trying to be normalized. Thanks to the insight of my friend, and my own experience, I know it for what it truly is – a story of the sexual abuse of child, wrapped in the cliché cover story of a mysterious and troubled wealthy man. That is another thing my clinical psychologist friend pointed out later. Take away the aspect of money, and the character of the abuser becomes much less attractive and therefore it would have been much more difficult to pull of the deception. Are women actually that shallow? Yes, we can be.

      But women, the vast majority of us, are not people who knowingly condone the sexual abuse of children. We do not condone in any way, the horror that is pedophilia.

      Sadly though, that is exactly what is happening with the popularity of 50 Shades of Grey. It’s a pedophilia con.

      It is one of the most horrible and sickening acts against the most powerless of our society, hiding in plain sight.

      Maybe my friend put it best when we talked all of this over. 50 Shades of Grey didn’t excite her. She didn’t find it interesting, sexy, or romantic.

      50 Shades of Grey made her weep. It made her sick. It made her think of the abuses of all of those kids by a demented, warped monster like Jerry Sandusky, who, just like the pedophilia of 50 Shades of Grey, was hiding in plain sight.

      • AmericaTheBeautiful
      • Haven’t read 50 shades but perfectly named as the left wants nothing moral viewed as black and white, or in absolutes as in absolutely wrong. Situation Ethics…the new morality…proportionism becomes an ethical excuse and the downward slide against the absolutes of Christianity.
        Imagine what fills the mind of Barack Obama, whose mentor was Frank Marshall Davis, an avowed pedophile and pornographer …and if the research of many of Obama’s biographers is to be believed…also his abuser….It is stunning to consider the president, the man who sits in the oval office had as his mentor a
        a pederist who lauded NAMBLA…a communist whose entire belief system was antithetical to everything most Americans believe…thanks for the review. I’ll be sure to pass it by.

        • ThroughtheLookingGlass
        • That speaks volumes to the warm welcoming and outpouring of praise from the lamestream media touting it as a ‘must read’. Lower the standards, values, and morals of the people and they will succumb to anything. Barry definitely has to go! And he needs to take his sleazy crew with him.

    • reader
    • Kat, whoever you are. Just wow. I read the books. I liked them. They were sort of disposable distractions. I thought. Your perspective is making me rethink it. I never really sat back and looked at all those clues you just laid out. But they are there. Like you said, “hiding in plain sight” I’m going to give this some real serious thought and get back to you, ok? This has me feeling more than a little sick because I think you may be right. Need to digest this though.

      • AmericaTheBeautiful
      • Holy cow Cobra…great catch…Connecting the dots of corruption…. that lead right to the White House and that corrupt assswipe…the Comunist Obama…….connecting to Leo Gerard…the key to the takedown of the USA and her economy…..

        Don’t miss this folks …it explains quite a bit…and is WHI related…nice job Jeffrey Lord!
        An excerpt:
        http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/16/leo-gerard-and-the-chicago-thu/5

        SPECIAL REPORT
        Leo Gerard and the Chicago Thugs

        By JEFFREY LORD on 8.16.12 @ 6:10AM

        Is Obama appointee the link between the Obama campaign and the Obama SuperPAC?

        (Page 6 of 7)
        Bradford’s views jive almost perfectly with the view from that anonymous GST steelworker given to Trinko:
        … some of the employees — including those racking up $100,000 to $130,000 salaries — large chunks of the day were just spent waiting for something to fix or do, with up to 80 percent of day spent not working.… And those are the hours they weren’t sleeping and getting over time. During those overtime hours, when they brought sleeping bags…
        In other words, while Greta Van Susteren correctly points out the problems the Clinton Administration was having with cheap foreign steel and dumping issues were part of the GST problem brought on not by Bain Capital and Mitt Romney or his successors (including an Obama bundler from Bain, Bain managing director Jonathan Lavine) — but by the United Steelworkers union itself?
        Or, simply put, did Joe Soptic’s union do Joe Soptic out of a job? By taking an already precarious business and striking it, draining it of $22 million?
        WHICH BRINGS US BACK to Leo Gerard, now the union president and in 1997, holding the job of the union’s treasurer.
        The Obama-Biden “Truth Team” (no kidding, they call themselves a “Truth Team”) is indignant that NRO has come up with a GST worker who alleges union members at GST were making $100,000-$130,000.
        But how well does old Leo Gerard make out these days in the class warfare department?
        Why… shocker! Leo Gerard is…how does one say… a 1 percenter!
        That’s right. The Obama Department of Labor reports that in 2010 Leo Gerard — he the recipient of the Democratic Socialists of America’s 2007 Eugene Debs Award — has a salary of $166, 117 plus another $27,333 in benefits and other compensation. Earning this union president — presumably at the expense of union workers like Joe Soptic — a tidy sum of $188, 450.
        This being the same Leo Gerard identified here by our friend Aaron Klein of WABC as demanding:
        “I think what we need is, we need more militancy… I think we’ve got to start a resistance movement. If Wall Street occupation doesn’t get the message, I think we’ve got to start blocking bridges and doing that kind of stuff.” 
        This being the same Leo Gerard who was once captured on film dragging concrete planters to obstruct the 1999 World Trade Organization conference in Seattle. Otherwise known as the trashing of the city during “The Battle of Seattle.”
        Yes — that’s right. An Obama appointee involved in activities that were filled with violence and massive physical damage to an American city. Shocking, I know.
        One could go on — and on and on.
        What we have here is this:

        Leo Gerard and the Chicago Thugs

        By JEFFREY LORD on 8.16.12 @ 6:10AM

        Is Obama appointee the link between the Obama campaign and the Obama SuperPAC?

        (Page 7 of 7)
        • An Obama presidential appointee and union leader (Gerard of the US Trade Advisory) appears to have had a prior connection to the now controversial Joe Soptic (that 2008 video). The USW is not answering my questions about the Gerard-Soptic relationship or the video as of this writing.
        • Obama SuperPAC honcho Bill Burton, already under fire for the Soptic video, was White House Deputy Press Secretary when the White House press office announced Gerard’s appointment to ACTPN.
        • Leading to the obvious question. Did Gerard lead both the Obama campaign and the Obama SuperPAC to Soptic while serving in an official capacity in the Obama Administration ? Thus being the “missing link” connector between the Obama Administration and the Obama SuperPAC. The man who connected Joe Soptic to Stephanie Cutter and Bill Burton?
        • Questions are now raised (again) as to whether the United Steelworkers, of which Gerard was an officer as treasurer, had a hand in bringing down GST Steel by costing it some $22 million in a 10-week strike. Did they also milk GST with $100,000 salaries for favored union members at GST — while some union members were literally sleeping on the job?
        • And last but not least, there is the old news of Leo Gerard’s behavior at the WTO — and why he has any White House appointment at all.
        As they say over there on Fox News: we report, you decide.

      • CHHR, VA
      • Interesting webs we weave, don’t you think? I’m wondering when folks will begin to link the actual history about the Crusades to what is happening globally today?

    • Publius
    • UM – Please view and highlight for your readers 22-minute web documentary by former military special operations and CIA officers who criticize Obama Admin for leaking highly classified information for their own political gain. Video is powerful and can be seen at:

      http://www.opsecteam.org

    • VTX
    • See the tide turning? It’s a Red Tide for President Votes-Present (Obama’s Cherokee name.)

      The picture of Votes-Present in a dead-dry cornfield reminds me – (in a visceral way, deep and to-the-core) – of Apocalypto, Gibson’s last sane attempt at communicating with the real world. While Votes-Present’s followers are more like Children of the Corn, another scary movie, the picture of Votes-Present in front of dead, withered corn is deeply unsettling.

      It’s a Red Tide for Votes Present, but that tide is receding – and taking him with it.

    • Obeline
    • All of these people stink to high heaven. Bill Clinton is a pimp – and Zero is flailing wildly.
      The Hillary and Valerie Show . . . from the Daily Caller:

      During Thursday night’s “The Kudlow Report” on CNBC, “The Amateur” author Ed Klein said that according to sources within the Clinton camp, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was approached about the possibility of beingPresident Barack Obama’s running mate in November. And, Klein said, she turned it down.

      Pundits and talking heads have discussed in recent weeks the possibility of Vice President Joe Biden being replaced on the Democratic presidential ticket, particularly with news of his brief hiatus from the spotlight this weekend.

      “Up until just a couple of weeks ago the White House was putting out feelers to see if Hillary would accept the vice-presidential nod and replace Joe Biden,” Klein said. “Bill Clinton was, I’m told, urging his wife to accept the number two slot. He saw this as a great launching pad for her for running in 2016.”

      “But then Hillary had lunch in the White House a couple of weeks ago with Valerie Jarrett — Michelle [Obama]’s best friend, senior adviser to both the first lady and the president … and she told Valerie that she would not accept the vice president’s spot. The lunch was ostensibly about other matters, but it came up. … Hillary felt burned out after four years as Secretary of State. But I’m told there were more important reasons for her not accepting.”

      Those reasons, Klein explained, involve the former first lady being put in positions that would make her vulnerable if she should decide to run for president four years from now.

      “She felt that if she were on the ticket with Obama and he lost, she would be tarred as a loser when she tried to run in 2016,” Klein said. “On the other hand, if she was on the ticket and he won, and he continued his far left-wing socialistic policies, she’d have to defend those policies when she ran in 2016.”

      Klein said the talks never involved President Obama out of fear that if Clinton were to turn him down, her husband former President Bill Clinton would leak it out and embarrass Obama. Klein also said the current first lady was aware of the Jarrett-Clinton discussion. Although Hillary Clinton declined, he added, the door isn’t completely shut on her running as the number two.

      “You can assume if Valerie Jarrett is speaking to Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama — who is connected at the hip with Valerie Jarrett — knew all about this,” Klein said.

      “There is one caveat: If Obama gets in desperate straits and Romney and Ryan pull way ahead of him, and he and Bill Clinton team up and put pressure on Hillary, there’s still a possibility.”

      In the end, Klein said Obama would likely stay with Biden.

      “I think they are stuck with him. I think they have to go with him, unless, as I say, Bill [Clinton] and Obama can team up on Hillary and say to her, ‘You’ve got to do this.’ She does not want to do it. He would like her to do it — her husband. But I don’t think she will.”

      Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/17/the-amateur-author-ed-klein-hillary-dismissed-vp-possibility-two-weeks-ago/#ixzz23o6S5g8C

      • AmericaTheBeautiful
      • Considering Hillary’s age…I would not bet on her staying off the ticket. With all the posturing this week one must consider this is forecasting…Also bringing Bill Clinton on as speaker at the convention may be foreshadowing of Hillary…Shame on McCain and Palin for calling for Biden’s replacement and Hillary on the ticket. Do those two loosers think a Romney loose will lessen their disastrous run???
        This breathless will she -won’t she? runs true to the Dem form of running a National Enquier type soap opera campaign…where they will try to run a campaign on personalities…”Biden as a gaffer had to go..no blowback on the great leader–O and Hillary, two Affirmative Action hires cannot be attacked or you’re a racist/misogynist…that’s all they got…and the offering to the lowest common denominator is their best bet…Nurse Ratchett completes the picture where regulations have killed freedom and the constitution….these two arsonists have lit the globe afire…if elected the USA and her people will be terrorised and ruled by the winning combination of what will look like Hitler and Stalin in partnership …God help us.

    • CHHR, VA
    • In a conversation with a BP executive over the weekend…

      He mentioned that when Clinton was going through the impeachment process, conventional wisdom decided not to pursue for one reason… No one wanted Gore as President.

      Thinking about Biden, wouldn’t his being on the ticket make Obama rather impeachment proof too?

      It sure does make me wonder who initiated what conversation. Knowing that Hilary is one of the more popular politicians has me believing other than what the media has been instructed to report.

    • Obeline
    • HIllary has been a dismal failure as SOS.

      While remaining a goddess in the eyes of her stalwart supporters, even they probably understand her record over the past four years is a major weakness.

      Zero/Hillary would be such an easy target: Domestic + International Failures Galore.

      ABO

    • truthandjustice
    • As I’ve said many times before, nothing would surprise me with this evil bunch. Yes, always Kabucki all the time plus they themselves probably aren’t sure and trying to figure it out and “fluid” as WHI said. Re Hillary, even though Obama has come out and said he’s sticking with Biden – who knows. Another act? We’ve also read where the powers that be above Jarrett are “done” with Obama – “damaged goods”. What to do and when? Remember who we’re dealing with here. Capable of the worst. I can think of scenarios where they are “no longer around” due to some “unfortunate unexpected attack” or whatever and then you could put her in. Re Palin, some think it was a brilliant strategy to get them to stick with Biden:

      “So just in case the Democrats might think about making a switch to Hillary, along comes Sarah Palin to suggest it.
      And now they can’t do it even if they wanted to. Obama can’t be seen as taking advice from Sarah Palin.

      So she’s helping the Romney ticket by writing Biden off. The Romney ticket wants Biden right where he is.

      Finally, it was pure genius of Governor Palin to bring this up because it also reminded Hillary Clinton supporters what happened to her in 2008. Many of whom are still angry over the way she was treated by Obama’s people during that primary, and then snubbed as his vice presidential pick. Ripping the scab off of that wound is not good for Democrat unity before a major general election.

      Bravo, Governor!”

      http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/08/thanks-to-gov-palin-the-democrats-are-stuck-with-uncle-joe-2.html

      Be prepared for A.N.Y.T.H.I.N.G !!!!!

      • CHHR, VA
      • Did you also happen to notice the high level of coverage about Ryan’s “hot body?”

        When you talk about a woman & her looks – you get what can only be called sleeze media. Talk about a man & his looks and you get the makings of a public joke.

        From where I sit, Palin is right where she needs to be… and I couldn’t honor her more for her courage and tenacity.

        What could have very well began as an impeachment proof decision to add Biden to the ticket in 2008 has come back to bite them in a big way. Damaged goods doesn’t campaign well and the term “tolerance” has become absurd.

        I couldn’t be more pleased. We’ve learned a lot in the last three years and the rhetoric against the conservative movement has seemed to have lost it’s zing. If in doubt, one only has to do a google on Chik-Fil-A – the story just isn’t and won’t go away.

        On another story, Virginia hit a new high last month.

        Seems the Governor signed a new law – abortion clinics must meet health clinic standards. What do you suppose the left did? Yea, they oppose the new rules with gusto citing none other than “women’s health and the right to chose?”

        zing

Leave A Response

* Required

-->