Donald Trump embarrasses himself again

January 8, 2015 • 3:38 pm

That’s right, the man who has 2.8 million followers on Twi**er, for no obvious reason save his wealth, has put his foot it in again. His solution to the terrorist attacks in Paris: give the French more guns!

If Trump had his way, the citizens of Europe would be just as armed as those of Alabama.  All the employees of Charlie Hebdo would have had guns, and thus could clearly have taken down the two murderers armed only with Kalashnikovs and rocket launchers.

Here are of The Donald’s tw**ts from yesterday:

Screen shot 2015-01-07 at 6.22.00 PM

This is a guy who wants to be President of the U.S. God save America. Oh wait. . . . that’s not possible.

 

116 thoughts on “Donald Trump embarrasses himself again”

  3. Trump obviously hasn’t wandered around the Pas-de-Calais countryside to the symphony of farmers’ gunshot as French bird-death plummets into the killing fields. x

  5. Trump is- always has been- a huckster and a con man. He doesn’t even care what he says, as long as he’s in the public eye.

    2. Yup. And, he isn’t very bright, and has few scruples (but you already said that). Every time he opens his mouth I feel a little embarrassed for him, and disgusted that our society / economy favors such people.

      1. I think the Trumpster is an ignorant, loud-mouthed buffoon [no, please, tell us what you really think!] and that hideous toupé is the perfect freak flag to advertise it.

        (You’d think he could afford an assistant to groom him and give him advice — especially since he styles himself a public figure (and is something of one).)

  7. Heh, I never understand the appeal of Trump either. I think he’s a low brow loud mouth.

    It’s funny because I once took a test after I graduated from university, at a place to sell to see if I had the personality of someone who should sell insurance.

    One the questions I distinctly remember was, “who do you admire most?” The options included a few answers, but the ones that stood out for me were: a scientist, a millionaire. I picked “a scientist”. I failed the test. 🙂 Meh, I didn’t care. I went back to school to get a second degree. Screw those millionaires.

      1. No, but they did tell me I didn’t pass the test and therefore didn’t have the type of personality that would thrive on that work. I think they made it understood that you needed to really just care about getting rich.

        3. When I was a student I got a part-time job as a cleaner, in an insurance company head office. ALL the desks had rows of books along the lines of ‘How to win friends and influence people’ and similar motivational tripe, and rows of framed certificates on the walls “Bill Nurk was awarded Four Gold Stars for selling $733,000 worth of insurance in May 1968”. I decided I was never going to buy insurance from any company whose wageslaves were under so much pressure to push their product…

          1. ‘ . . . rows of framed certificates on the walls “Bill Nurk was awarded Four Gold Stars for selling $733,000 worth of insurance in May 1968″.”

            Yeah. “Employee of the Month/Quarter/Year.” In the U.S. Navy it was the same for (enlisted) “Sailor.” (There’s a “Good Conduct Medal,” for enlisted only, not officer. Seems “good” conduct would be the minimum expected. Getting a medal for what one should bloody well be doing anyway?) In public education it’s “Teacher” and “Student.” (One middle school gave out “awards,” the top part of which was a $1.00-off coupon to the local McDonalds, which no doubt was a charitable deduction on income taxes. Many students littered the assembly hall with the remainder “award” part. Meant a lot to ’em, eh? Ain’t that jest dad-gum somethin’?)

            Maybe there should be “Investor of the Year” and “Congressman of the Year.” “Lobbyist of the Year.” “Big Bucks Donor of the Year.” “Hedge Fund/Junk Bond Manager (Taxed at Investor Rates) of the Year.”

            Do tenured university profs have to put up with this fatuity? (“Distinguished Service Awards” are a different animal.)

  8. They shot a police officer. And they were armed with machine guns and had body armour. How exactly could civilians have stopped them if they’re killing police?

    1. Because magic gun rainbow bullet faery ammo sparkles!

      Haven’t you ever seen any of the various relevant documentaries, such as the biographies of various heroes portrayed by the likes of Stallone and Schwarzenegger? Bad guys can spray hundreds of rounds at point-blank range towards the good guy, and none will seriously harm him; and, at the same time, the good guy will do a somersault across an open space, armed only with a six-shooter, and put a bullet through the forehead of at least nineteen bad guys.

      Sheesh. Don’t you know anything!?

      b&

  9. Did Trump miss all the people that got shot in the US in schools, university campuses, military bases and so on? The man is an offensive buffoon.

    1. Why, of course not. He undoubtedly concluded that if those teachers and students had been packing heat, the shooters would never had a chance.

  10. I heard this same sentiment expressed on Fox News yesterday.

    If everyone had the right to carry a gun in France, we’d probably be seeing a lot more massacres. Has Trump actually looked at the world statistics for shooting deaths? Now that’s one area I’ll not argue with American exceptionalism.

    2. “If everyone had the right to carry a gun in France, we’d probably be seeing a lot more massacres.”

      I don’t think that follows. I live in Vermont, where anyone can carry concealed without a permit. We have very low gun violence.

  11. I do think that more European police are going to be armed. The thinking used to be that if the cops didn’t have guns, the crooks wouldn’t need them either. This does not hold true for terrorism that wants to kill/injure as many people as possible.

    1. The gendarmerie are armed and are a paramilitary style force. In Europe I think only Ireland, Norway and the UK with the exception of the PSNI are unarmed police forces.

      1. Beat me to it. NI is kind of a weird exception with a lot of historical religio-political (ahem) violence thrown in for good measure!

        1. Being picky there are a couple of other exceptions in the UK.
          The Mod plod are all firearms trained and the majority will be routinely armed but since they guard MOD sites are not overly conspicious. Exception are those in London.
          Then there is the Civil Nuclear Police who routinely carry but as the name suggests are only seen in a few places.
          London tends to have quite a few armed cops, if you see a red car chances are they will be carrying as those are the diplomatic protection.
          One side effect though of the county forces only arming a few is that those who are armed tend to be fairly heavily armed.

          1. Well, yes… Those forces have specific jurisdictions, as opposed to the various local forces who deal with the population as a whole. The NI force, however, do deal with the locals directly. Armed plod is also present at airports, but I think that they are from the local force.

            And yes, all forces have firearms offices. There have been screw ups (Met, I’m looking at you) but even when they are involved in a situation, way more often then not it’s defused before force is used. As you say, the armed units are pretty heavily tooled up when they do come out which tends to discourage too much nonsense.

          2. Reminds me of a story a friend of mine tells of his time in Switzerland. On a train a large group of trainee soldiers were present, with guns and weren’t excising much common sense. pointing guns at each other and the other passengers.
            Worried he asked the sergeant in charge were they carrying live ammunition. To which the sergeant says yes the regulations state that all soldiers must have live ammo while in transit between bases.
            Seeing the look of fear from my friend he then opens a small box and shows him the firing pins as regulations don’t say anything about how functional the gun should be.

          3. “…pointing guns at each other and the other passengers”
            Sheesh. Lucky the passengers weren’t armed, or that sort of thing would get messy quickly.

    2. Many continental European forces *are* already armed, if not most. The French, German, etc police or gendarmes(gendarmes are paramilitary) are significantly more tooled up than the British.

      9mm sidearms, mainly, with the equivalent of SWAT being more heavily armed. As far as the British PCs go, only the specialists have guns.

    3. I have been informed by reliable sources that the officers responding to the attack were armed with quite reliable 9mm automatic pistols, including quite the two officers who were shot.

      I think it’s mostly the UK that has tried to take the unarmed route.

      1. True. Most European police/gendarmes use something like a Glock 17. Scary for us Brits but against an opponent with an assault rifle, body armour and possibly training they are going to have a lot of problems.

        It’s all very unpleasant.

  13. Yes, guns can certainly be horrible when wielded by maniacs, or anyone for that matter, and, yes, Donald Trump is a buffoon speaking out his a** most, if not all, of the time, yet, if France does indeed have very strict gun control laws, then it seems we will never, no matter what we do, be absolutely safe from those who wish to do us harm.

    1. It’s more straight forward to own firearms in France than in than in the UK – we are very heavily restricted and I knew people who moved their weapons to clubs in France rather than have to surrender them in the late 90s when our last set of laws came in.

      Hunting with guns (shot & rifle) is not uncommon in continental Europe so especially out in the sticks people are often armed.

      2. The late 90 regulations (not TTBOMK laws) were in response to the Dunblane and/or Hungerford massacres.

  14. Frontline just had the show on PBS about the NRA in America. The most powerful and successful lobby in Washington DC. Anyway, as far as any regulation of guns in this country, it is game over. Only highlights a point that is already known by many and that is that our so-called democracy, that word people enjoy throwing around all the time, does not exist in any fashion here.

    Trump the moron is only parroting the republican lines to his followers. Next he’ll be telling the French how to cook.

  15. Sorry Jerry. Good people with guns = readiness. Bad people with guns = criminals and terrorists. It is no surprise that these events happen in “gun free” zones” like the Colorado movie theater, Oregon shopping mall, schools like Sandy Hook etc…. – and in Paris. Responsible gun owners don’t go around creating mayhem. In fact, for the most part, you don’t even know they own them.

    1. Good people with guns = lots of accidental murders and murders in hot blood because theere’s a gun around. And give me a break about where these events happen. There are far fewer gun murders in Great Britain than in the US, and Great Britain is largely a gun free zone. And I don’t appreciate your snark (“sorry, Jerry”). Plenty of “responsible” gun owners are responsible for accidental killings.

      Get civil, okay?

      1. A recent anecdatum: a woman who was a nuclear scientist was shot to death in a Walmart with her own gun by her own two-year-old son:

        http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/31/idaho-nuclear-scientist-shot-dead-son-walmart

        That’s pretty much the epitome of irresponsibility by an individual whom you otherwise would think of as being as responsible as it gets. If even she couldn’t stop herself from being the very caricature of irresponsibility, what chance do regular schmucks have?

        b&

        1. And for all you people who have never been to the US – no this person didn’t live in such a scary place that she had to arm herself with a hand gun that had its safety off with a round in the chamber no less.

          This is what makes the whole thing hard to understand to non Usians.

          1. Normal people can be talked into stupid stuff. The gun industry fills the gun culture with many reasons to buy guns – hunting, target shooting, appreciation of fine craftsmanship, self defense, mistrust of government and the occasional insurrection to keep the commies out of Washington.

          2. I once succumbed to the temptation to press a middle schooler – who wore hunting attire to school – to admit that hunting with a bow and arrow – or just a camera – took a more skilled hunter than someone possessed of a rifle with a scope. It took some doing to get him to admit that. He obviously hated to admit it.

          3. Well, yes. I imagine the hunter (or an adult version) was being forced to admit to having ulterior reasons for owning guns. Like the powerful way it makes them feel. The Walter Mitty in all of us. “Pocketa, pocketa”. I guess many people feel basic insecurity just living in a human infested environment. I think if you read the ads in hunting mags you might learn about some of the hidden motivations.

          5. “Or even persistence hunting….”

            There’s a guy on a “reality” show in Australia who does that. Ran down, and wore out, a fox and pulled him out of a hollow log, though he got bit in the process.

          6. I don’t think there’re any land animals that’re better long-distance runners than humans — and certainly not in the heat. Faster sprinters, yes. Faster over the course of a mile, yes. But able to maintain a steady jog for hours during the heat of a summer day? No.

            …of course, it only works for humans in excellent physical condition. The archetypal American lardass wouldn’t last a mile….

            b&

          7. As George Carlin remarked to the effect, highly-evolved, fat-ass consumers, shopping and eating. Were it offered, they’d eat sauteed raccoon [anal orifices]on a stick.”

          8. Try hunting with a boomerang as the Australian aborigines do. If you can bring down a kangaroo with a boomerang you have some serious skills!

          9. True, but they could leave their gun at home while at Walmart. I’m sure the invading king isn’t going to stop in for some socks and lightbulbs first.

            I think part of the gun culture phenomenon is some really fear something is going to go down at any minute and they will need to use their gun to save themselves or someone else.

            That and exercising their rights, so to speak, but I don’t think those people are the majority of regular gun carriers.

          10. As I’ve said before, the gun-culture types believe that they live in a world out of an 80s action movie where at any minute they might be attacked by communist ninjas out to kill the President (who’s white and conservative) so if they’re not carrying their gun at all times, they might miss out on their big shot at being a Real American Hero.

          11. While stupidly watching the last season of 24 last year, I thought how it must’ve appealed to these types. Especially the scene where Jack and a bunch of others bust into some Russian politician’s house in England (furnished in Soviet style art, including a bust of Lenin) and shoot everybody, even the grumpy guard at the gate & the maid!

          12. That’s probably the crucial factor: attitudes towards gun ownership and responsibility. Thinking guns are for fun shooting in carefully looked after galleries is one thing: thinking guns are all that stands between you and the great global conspiracy is another.

          13. There’s a lot of insanity around guns in the US.

            Here’s a case in point. You pretty much cannot buy 22LR ammunition in the US anymore. (0.22 inch caliber “long rifle”, a very cheap, relatively low power (around 115 ft-pounds of energy), small caliber, rim-fire rifle and pistol ammunition). It’s been (probably) the most common type of ammunition in the US for at least 50 years — or least used to be.

            This is because when Obama came into office, there was tea-bagger histeria (Oh noes, the black guy is going to take all our guns!!!!) and people made a run on the market. And it’s continued ever since. 7.62mm (AK) ammunition is also very hard to find.

            When I grew up (in the US middle west), every boy (and most girls) learned how to handle firearms and how to shoot — using little .22LR rifles.

            I wanted to do the same for my young son *.

            I found that I couldn’t find any .22LR anywhere. When I was a kid, you could buy it for $0.02 per round at every gas station, for crying out loud (which is another problem altogether).

            I found that the reason was, basically, at bottom, a hysteria about Obama gonna take our’n guns! Sheesh.

            (* Guns are ubiquitous in the US; I strongly believe it’s important for him to know how to handle them safely; and also when to bail from friends who are being unsafe. I have had to do this (move away from people who are being unsafe) several times in the past.)

          14. The funny thing about the paranoia that Obama is going to take away the guns is that the only gun legislation that I know of him actually passing was to authorize the removal of a ban on guns in national parks that was passed when W was in office.

          15. “This is what makes the whole thing hard to understand to non Usians.”

            Yeah, but have to remember that we consider ourselves such a bloody “exceptional” people.

          16. You know, I’m both slightly proud AND slightly worried that I wouldn’t know where to look on a gun for the so-called safety catch. I’d guess within a thumb-swipe of a ready-to-fire position. But that’s on logic, not knowledge.

          17. I’ve discussed with my dear wife whether we ought to have a gun in the house. It’s a bloody source of worry. If so, we need to go practice shooting enough so that we are TRAINED in its use. I.e., we need to practice enough that we have sufficient “muscle memory” that we are not beset with uncertainty and worry about whether we can correctly and automatically (dis-)engage the safety as necessary without a shred of doubt.

            It is of course preferable that these misbegotten miscreant criminals not be begotten in the first place so that we do not have to deal with them.

          18. The only way I could trust myself with a firearm for “personal protection” would be if I kept myself trained at least to the firearms standards of the local police. And, as soon as you’re at that requirement, it becomes obvious that the gun is the least part of the responsibility…you’ve also gotta have the unarmed combat skills, and the ability to talk somebody down, and a thorough knowledge of when you are and aren’t legally allowed to use which kinds of force…basically, you’ve got to have all the training and skills of a cop.

            But why would I waste my time with that sort of thing when the odds of me ever “needing” such “protection” are down there with being struck by lightning? I’d much rather take a defensive driving course — much more fun, and much more likely to actually prevent harm to me and those all around me.

            b&

          19. There are safer ways to store a gun as well. I was brought up with rifles and was told to always treat a gun as if it is loaded. My dad still has collector items and he removed the firing pins from them and of course they were never loaded anyway. The gun can’t be fired as it is disabled.

          20. With castle doctrine inspired laws beefed up with stand your ground laws knowing when it is legal to use deadly force is not all that important. Unless, of course, you have decent ethics and a couple of brain cells to rub together.

          21. I have a few guns at home. Locked. Ammunition stored away from the guns in relatively inaccessible and quite hidden places.

            Most are inherited from my father. However, I do have a (locked) handgun. Only I know where the key is (separate from the gun; but reasonably accessible to me).

            I am quite competent with a gun.

            We have a somewhat special reason for having one. My wife’s ex. is more than a bit weird and depressed. He’s a gun nut. We’ve always been a bit worried about what might happen if he has a bad day. He lives only 3 miles away.

            I am glad to say that I’ve never been in a situation where I needed a gun (I do my very best to consciously avoid places where such a thing might happen). Well, I’ll amend that. One time I was called to a (female) family member’s home, along with my Dad. They had someone (male) in the house that they couldn’t convince to leave the house and was worried (understandably).

            My Dad asked, “Should we bring guns?” And I said, absolutely not. If it’s that kind of situation, we’re calling the cops.

          22. There are situations where guns are necessary. And the cops are the people to deploy them.
            Which doesn’t exclude ending the conversation with the emergency dispatch with comments to off-phone people about “take guns?” “Yes” … “three vehicle from two directions” “three directions. #CLICK#”
            Wasting police time is an offence – minor – here. But you’re already talking about a real situation, so that’s not an issue.

          23. Indeed, the woman was far more at real risk of a shortened lifespan from consuming products in the carbonated beverages aisle than from any perceived threat for which a gun is assumed an effective countermeasure.

            b&

      2. Well said Brad. This seems to be one of the more civil comments here regardless of one’s feelings on guns. I appreciate your input.
        Jerry, thanks for the website. I always enjoy a visit here.

    2. Gun free zone? There is no such thing.

      You can shoot people anywhere: on an Army base, a nuclear power plant, a football stadium, a police station. I bet with less than half a dozen guys you could storm Congress while in session.

      Whereever matter, illwill and insecurity exist, guns can exist.

      1. I’ll bet the dead mother of that mental defect up there in Sandy Hook thought she was a good person with guns. Yes, very good person with guns and equally as stupid as the bad guys.

  16. I don’t necessarily agree with Trump’s position – I’m not even sure if I can clearly say what his position is from the 3 tweets below – but I’m not strictly against certain private citizens having a permit to carry. In Canada for instance it’s perfectly legal to carry a restricted firearm (e.g. a pistol); you just need an Authorization to Carry (ATC) permit. To acquire such a permit is relatively rare. Citizens with ATCs more often than not are issued them so they can carry restricted firearms in the wilderness because of their jobs. Some though are permitted in exceptionally rare cases because of imminent danger to their lives (e.g. a judge or maybe an abortion doctor). I think the editor of Charlie Hebdo and maybe some other employees, if they lived in Canada, would have been authorized to carry if they applied. I would support that.

    1. Relevant : in the UK, during the “IRA war”, Paisley (bigot and major hate inflamer) was allowed to carry a pistol IN ADDITION to close protection police, themselves armed.

    1. “You’re fired!” 😉

      From the 2012 U.S. presidential campaign, this is apparently Mitt Romney’s preferred management technique. Were he a teacher, “firing” would not be a “classroom management technique” available to him.

    2. Why would anyone listen to anything he says?

      Because, at some level, they buy into the Prosperity Gospel. He’s rich; therefore, he both deserves it and has some sort of great wisdom to impart. If both didn’t hold, he wouldn’t be rich. But, because he is rich, we know for certain that he must, indeed, be both deserving and wise.

      b&

      2. I was watching a statistics tutorial on You Tube yesterday that used survival statistics from the sinking of the Titanic for an example. The tutor noted in passing that a particular woman who was in first class had survived the sinking, and commented approvingly that she had paid a lot of money for her ticket, and he was pleased to see that it had meant she lived! Clearly in his world the rich have a greater right to life than the poor. I was astonished to see such casual elitism so thoughtlessly exhibited.

        2. There are many people who think that take wealth as an indicator of how “good” a person is. If you’re wealthy, you therefore smart, hard working, and self made so therefore also deserving. In their minds, the less wealth you have means the less “good” you are and the less deserving you are of good things. It is beyond their comprehension that wealth often has very little to do with all those attributes and that there are plenty of financially disadvantaged people who are smart and hard working but through other circumstances (health, poor social mobility due to the system they live in, born into a family of modest means, etc.) never attained great wealth.

          1. Yep. At any given period of time new wealth, somebody hitting it big with a new idea, business, invention, ect., is extremely rare. Most wealth is old wealth that has been passed down. Once a certain level of wealth is attained it is relatively easy to maintain and grow it, given the increased access to power of all kinds that goes with wealth.

            And the oft made claim that people who make a lot of money made it because the worked really hard for it, and were really smart about it, is complete bullshit. Plenty of people work very hard, and smartly, but don’t achieve wealth. The key factor in attaining wealth is merely chance. Sure, working hard, and being smart, are important. Luck favors those best prepared. But chance is the key factor.

          2. I find the whole notion of combining moral status with hard work and intelligence as one big moral confusion. Nothing makes persecution of poor people more attractive (and harder to stop) than the idea that they somehow “deserve” it, even if “it” is only the bad luck of the draw that life gave them. It’s this moralistic mindset that causes the equally stupid mindset of dehumanization and demonization that underpins the whole talk about deserving and undeserving rich and poor.

          3. If I correctly recall reading, the Walton inheritors have a net worth equal to the bottom 43% of (313,000,000?) Amuricuhns.

        3. Is the tutor also an economist as well as a statistician? He should have been shoveling coal down in the bowels of the Titanic’s fire room at 3 a.m.

          I read somewhere that Univ. of Chicago economist Milton Friedman’s (Mr. “Free To Choose”) solution to injuries caused by adulterated food and drugs and workplace injuries – in the absence of an FDA or OSHA – was to sue under tort law.

          Right. A family man barely making ends meet, and out of work with his arm having been torn off from getting caught in an uncaged wheel and belt, has the money for a protracted legal battle with a corporation with a large legal department, the cost of which treated as a cost of doing business.

      1. Yes, every teabaggin’ moron thinks: Hey I could be a loud-mouthed, uncouth, WEALTHY moron (just like the Trumpster!). So don’t you dare tax him! And then they go and vote against their own best economic interests.

    2. I think he’ll only run again if he needs another ratings boost for that stupid show of his.

        1. Or the coal miners in West Virginia, or migrant workers here and there in the several states. Would he, Romneyesque, don his khakis and bend over and harvest those veggies with beads of sweat popping out on his forehead and his back aching – along with those migrant worker CHILDREN working like Trojans?

          I wonder if there’s a difference in the chemical compositions of investor sweat and laborer sweat? As George Carlin so snarkily (sp.?) put it, the broke working poor “don’t have a negative cash flow position.”

          1. And they shouldn’t mind being prevented from sleeping under bridges–after all, Trump’s not allowed to either…

  19. ‘Success By Trump captures the spirit of the driven man. The scent is an inspiring blend of fresh juniper and iced red currant, brushed with hints of coriander. As it evolves, the mix of frozen ginger, fresh bamboo leaves and geranium emerge taking center stage, while a masculine combination of rich vetiver, tonka bean, birchwood and musk create a powerful presence throughout wear.’
    I’m not making this up. Doesn’t trump equate to fart in the US?

  21. On a lighter note, in England the word ‘trump’ is just another word for a ‘fart’. Nuf sed!

  22. If the inhabitants of France were as heavily armed as Trump seems to want, nobody would have noticed another dozen or so dead… [/sarcasm]

    (and probably doing an injustice to the French, at that)

  23. Where did Trump get the notion that the French can’t own firearms?

    France does require permits for “all semi-automatic rifles with a capacity greater than 3 rounds, all handguns and all rifles chambered in ‘military’ calibers, including bolt action” but these guns are not prohibited. Limits are placed on the total number of guns one can one, I think it is 12, and the amount of ammunition one can stockpiled at home.

      1. In discussions with NRA types (I am a gun owner by the way), I ask them: Should there be any restrictions on owning weapons?

        Generally they say no.

        Then I ask, so I should be able to freely own and operate a machine gun?

        Oh yeah!

        A .50-caliber machine gun?

        Well ….

        A 20mm cannon?

        Well, probably not

        Mortars, grenades, RPGs, a tank?

        No.

        Why not?

        Well, er … those aren’t realistic scenarios!

        1. I would love to play around with an RPG. They look so awesome in video games. And don’t get me started on the tank…

          Come on, NRA! Up your game! Thanks for Tanks! Think Tanks for Tanks! GTA3 Recreation Society!

          2. Why Doesn’t the National Rifle Association call itself the National Gun Association, or the National Weapon Association? Or maybe the National Gun Frottage Association?

          3. Because prior to turning into the Legion of the Batshit Insane, it was actually about promoting rifle hunting. And it gives them the chance to pretend that they’re something other than a shill for gun makers.

    2. Because everybody knows that France is filled with cheese-eating surrender monkeys and those pinko Commies wouldn’t ever allow their citizens to own guns cause cheese-eating surrender monkeys! *Hikes up pants and spits on the floor.*

Comments are closed.