Politics

Will This Election Be About Mormon Massacres and Obama's SAT scores?

|

Yesterday, Matt Welch noted the publication of a satire about Mitt Romney's treatment of dogs by two NPR journos, headlining the piece, "Seriously, This is What Our Elite Journalistic Institutions Are Writing About." He pointed readers to the Washington Post, which covered the important story.

Here's another WashPost story in the same vein, though this one has the trappings of historical information and electoral seriousness.

Mitt Romney's Mormon faith tangles with a quirk of Arkansas history

CARROLLTON, Ark. — On the wildflower-studded slopes of the Ozarks, where memories run long and family ties run thick, a little-known and long-ago chapter of history still simmers.

On Sept. 11, 1857, a wagon train from this part of Arkansas met with a gruesome fate in Utah, where most of the travelers were slaughtered by a Mormon militia in an episode known as the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Hundreds of the victims' descendants still populate these hills and commemorate the killings, which they have come to call "the first 9/11."

Many of the locals grew up hearing denunciations of Mormonism from the pulpit on Sundays, and tales of the massacre from older relatives who considered Mormons "evil."

You got that? Mormons are sometimes considered evil—even in the Ozarks, that redoubt of enlightened thinking and representative thinking of this vast land of liberty. In case you don't fully understand the stakes, the Post spells it out for you:

There aren't many places in America more likely to be suspicious of Mormonism — and potentially more problematic for Mitt Romney, who is seeking to become the country's first Mormon president.

When you've lost the Ozarks, man, you've lost America, right? I wonder how often in other contexts the Post goes to the hills to take the pulse of the nation.

After learning that Mitt Romney is a solid member of a religion that is strange and cultish to most Americans—and one implicated in a horrifying murder rampage in the 19th century—we learn something funny:

There is scant evidence that Romney's religion is making much difference in how voters here are thinking about the presidential election and whether they are willing to back the former Massachusetts governor….

Eight out of 10 Republicans and Democrats said Romney's faith was not a major reason to support or oppose him, according to an April Washington Post-ABC News poll. And a recent study by the Brookings Institution found that Romney's religion may actually increase his support from conservative voters, including white evangelicals.

This is a classic sort of news story formula, in which the reporter's first impulse is totally thwarted by actual reporting but the journalist doesn't want to give up the lede that got him or her interested in the first place. You can almost see the wheels turning: They've got to hate Mormons and hence Mitt Romney in this place! What a great way to talk about how weird Mormonism is, even if it clearly is not going to have much if any effect on the outcome of the election! "Mitt Romney's Mormon faith tangles with a quirk of Arkansas history" is such a better headline than, say, "Romney's religion not a big factor in whether people think he should be president."

Hat tip: AllahPundit of Hot Air.

To judge from recent pieces at Breitbart.com, opponents of President Obama are also happy to focus on tangential issues almost as much as the mainstream media (see, they're not so different, are they?). As part of its "vetting" process of the incumbent,

Breitbart News has established that Obama's grades and Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores may have been even lower than those of his supposedly less capable predecessor, George W. Bush.

Breitbart News has learned that the transfer class that entered Columbia College in the fall of 1981 with Obama was one of the worst in recent memory, according to Columbia officials at the time….

More here.

As I wrote when Breitbart News released the 1991 book agency bio of Obama that mistakenly identified the aspiring memoirist as having been born in Kenya (the editor of Breitbart underscored that he believes the president was born in the U.S.), this sort of thing is a mug's game at best. Obama has a truly dismal record to run on and to the extent that his detractors focus on inessential matters that have no bearing on the current and future governing of the United States, they are not helping their side win the hearts and minds of undecided voters.

Lest they forget, Obama is the guy whose stimulus failed every benchmark for effectiveness he set, whose bailouts and "transformational" health care plan are genuinely unpopular, who has OK'ed killing U.S. citizens without judicial review, who has deported record numbers of immigrants, who raids medical marijuana dispensaries, kills school choice programs for poor kids in D.C.—and what really matters is whether his SAT or GPA is lower than George Bush's? His record as president is worse than Bush's—or at least it's in the same rotten neighborhood. That's the ticket, folks, to defeating him.

Breitbart News is not the Washington Post, of course, in terms of audience and representing itself as objective, but in such types of stories, both organizations display a similar willingness to chase butterflies rather than stay on track of serious issues. In this, alas, both are eerily like the dogs that evil Mitt Romney strapped to the top of his family wagon and secret Muslim Barack Obama ate as a kid in Indonesia.

Disclosure: ReasonTV's videos appear at the Breitbart News site Big Government.

NEXT: A.M. Links: NSA Looking to Universities for Cyber Ops, Facebook IPO Lawsuits, Lawmakers Target Anonymous Online Speech

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m basing my vote on Anne and Michelle’s fashion choices.

    Where’s Reason’s hard-hitting reporting on that? Postrel would have written whole book about it by now.

    1. You wear the garb of a true nord. I salute you.

    2. “The Substance Of Style On Really Fat Asses”

  2. In this, alas, both are eerily like the dogs that evil Mitt Romney strapped to the top of his family wagon and secret Muslim Barack Obama ate as a kid in Indonesia.

    TARP? ObamaCare? Stimulus? Cash for Clunkers? CFA?

    Yep, Obama’s a dog eater. He eats dogs.

    Woof!

  3. I think the SAT score is important for reasons that go beyond the election. Part of why Democrats have been successful is that they have managed to sell themselves as the “smart brand”. They get a lot of millage out of that. Anything that punctures their smugness is good.

    1. Screw SATs. Require every office seeker to take a standardized IQ test and make the results public.

      1. I’m not sure about that.

        Jimmy Carter, Herbert Hoover and Woodrow Wilson are probably in the top ten for presidential IQs. If not the top five.

        1. Then still require the IQ test, but always vote for the dumb one.

        2. That’s OK. The requirement would discourage many people.

        3. Don’t forget Richard Nixon. He was probably pretty brainy too. (It’s accepted wisdom that he resented the hell out of all those eggheads who were probably no smarter than he, but who got a reputation for smarts because their degrees came from Ivy League schools rather than from Whittier.)

    2. A lot of Republicans are still emotionally attached to Bush; it still bothers them that people dismissed the fargin’ idiot as stupid.

      For those people, I suppose it does matter, not so much that Obama is stupid, but that he’s just as stupid as Bush.

      I think that’s what’s going on here. Much of what these partisans dig up and put out isn’t really directed at their opponent’s audience. It’s about firing up their own base.

      P.S. Obama is a dog-eater.

      1. It has nothing to do with Bush. It has to do with the idea foisted on us by the media and the popular culture that every Democrat is smart and every conservative is stupid. Libertarians are generally painted as crazy or downright evil rather than stupid. And that needs to stop. It allows the Democrats to avoid defending their positions by claiming “all of the smart people believe this”. And don’t think that doesn’t have an effect. I know plenty of people who support things like Keynesian economics because they think that is what all of the “smart people” believe. Democrats and Liberals have set themselves up as their own authority to appeal to.

        1. Has anyone pushed the meme that Romney was dumb? Dole and HW Bush were considered out of touch, but they were never labeled stupid. Hell, McCain was known as a terrible student, but I don’t recall him being labeled dumb.

          1. Absolutely he has, certainly in comparison to Obama. Has anyone ever called him smart? Not that I have ever heard. And more importantly, anyone who believes in ideas that outside the liberal mainstream thinking is labeled stupid of fanatical.

            1. I’ve seen loads of articles calling him smart, intelligent technocratic, etc.

          2. If anything he’s being pushed as too smart, too technocratic, and not human enough – kind of like Al Gore.

        2. I have long maintained around here that the partisans on both sides strive to become the caricatures their opponents make them out to be.

          If people see Republicans as being of lower intelligence or education, I’m not so sure that’s because of the way they’re portrayed in the media. I think it’s because Republicans themselves continue to make fundamental issues out of things like abortion, creationism, gay marriage, immigration, stonewalling on global warming, etc.

          There’s no doubt–the Democrats have striven to make themselves the smug class, who look down their supposedly intellectual noses at stuff like that.

          But that isn’t really a function of how Democrats portrays Republicans in the media. That’s a result of the way Republicans portray themselves.

          1. So only stupid people think abortion is a bad thing? Jesus Christ Ken what is wrong with you? And maybe you missed it Ken, but the main proponents of global warming have been proven over and over again to be liars. Only stupid people would think that is a problem?

            Those are all serious issues. And they are issues that were all started because of liberal over reach. Creationism wouldn’t be an issue if liberals hadn’t tried to ban religion from the public square. Abortion wouldn’t be near the issue if the Supreme Court hadn’t shoved it down the country’s throat and liberals insist on everyone paying for it. Global warming might still be a scientific debate if socialists hadn’t high jacked it.

            And since when are conservatives the only ones who are against immigration? Are you that stupid Ken? Have you missed the vicious fight in the environmental movement over immigration? Since when are unions conservative or pro union? Meanwhile of course there is nothing stupid about thinking that we can spend forever because it will “stimulate the economy”. And liberals have never bought into junk science or every single bullshit public health scare for the last 40 years.

            I am sorry Ken but your post is completely fucking stupid and insulting. When did you decide to become a troll?

            1. My position on abortion has evolved. I used to think elective abortion was morally wrong and should be legally wrong; I’m still sure it’s morally wrong, just not as convinced it should be as legally wrong as I used to be.

              Even when I was sure it was wrong, I despised partisans in the Republican party for making my pro-life leanings look stupider than they would have otherwise.

              There may be Democrats who are against immigration–opposition among unions isn’t quite what it used to be. Certainly, the Democrats in places like Detroit and New York don’t make an issue of immigration like Republicans do in places like Alabama and Arizona.

              Certainly, there’s room for skepticism on global warming. But a lot of Republicans I’ve talked to about global warming seem like they couldn’t be convinced by scientific data on the subject–any more than a creationist could be convinced by data supporting evolution.

              Meanwhile of course there is nothing stupid about thinking that we can spend forever because it will “stimulate the economy”.

              See, that’s the problem. All the important issues get drowned out by all the stupid shit–like gay marriage. It’s as if Republicans don’t want a thriving economy, if it means they can’t, for one example, discriminate against gay people.

              And I’m supposed to think the Republican’s perception problems are a result of the way they’re portrayed in the media?!

              1. I despised partisans in the Republican party for making my pro-life leanings look stupider than they would have otherwise.

                Why was that Ken? Because they called it out for what it is? Because they said it wasn’t protected under the 4th Amendment? Just what are these views you find so embarrassing?

                But a lot of Republicans I’ve talked to about global warming seem like they couldn’t be convinced by scientific data on the subject–any more than a creationist could be convinced by data supporting evolution.

                Oh bullshit. The data is a shame. And the people putting forth partisan liars. It is that simple. So since when have you become a mind reader? Those evil Republicans are just irrational I guess. Of course you can’t explain why or give any good examples. But you know it.

                Certainly, the Democrats in places like Detroit and New York don’t make an issue of immigration like Republicans do in places like Alabama and Arizona.

                So Republicans are stupid because they make a political issue out of something that directly affects their supporters? I get it Ken, they disagree with you on immigration so they must be stupid. No smart person could believe that maybe a country ought to enforce its borders. Do you ever think about these issues Ken or does your opinion just come straight from God so you know to a certainty that the other side could not possibly have a reasonable point?

              2. It’s as if Republicans don’t want a thriving economy, if it means they can’t, for one example, discriminate against gay people.

                Last I looked Ken gay marriage lost every time it has been put to a vote. Moreover, large blocks of traditionally Democratic voters are against gay marriage. So I fail to see how Republicans are sacrificing the economy for gay marriage. The issue is a political loser.

                No Ken, Republicans are sacrificing the support of smug douches. And that is exactly my point.

                1. If those states banning gay marriage are Republican victories, then those victories may be coming with a steep price in terms of how Republicans are perceived.

                  I maintain that one of the biggest reasons why the Republican Party is so marginalized in California today is because of Pete Wilson’s Prop 187 victory.

                  The Republicans may have won that Prop 187 victory, but the Republicans have been associated with immigrant bashing in California voters’ minds ever since–to the point that the only Republican who’s been able to get into the governor’s mansion since was himself an immigrant.

                  You can’t associate your party with an ultimately unimportant issue like gay marriage–and then turn around and cry that the reason people don’t your party is very intellectual is because of the way you’re portrayed in the media. Well, you can. But don’t be surprised if people make fun of you for it.

                  1. You can’t associate your party with an ultimately unimportant issue like gay marriage–

                    It is a good thing the Democrats are not associated with the issue or anything. Good thing they didn’t call the President the “first gay President” for supporting it.

                    It is not that the Republicans are associating themselves with “unimportant issues” Ken. It is that they are associating on the wrong side of those issues in your view. And good for you Ken. You are entitled to your opinion. But what you are not entitled to is the presumption that only your side has any reasonable points or is operating out of anything but ignorant.

                    You can think that Ken. But don’t complain when people call you out for being the smug dogmatic douche you are.

                    1. But what you are not entitled to is the presumption that only your side has any reasonable points or is operating out of anything but ignorant.

                      Just because there are two opposing views, doesn’t mean they should be given equal consideration or weight.

                      View 1: The world is round like an orb.

                      View 2: The world is flat like a chessboard.

                      One of them can be supported by a number of arguments; the other is a mere expression of personal opinion sprinkled with denialism. Why should anyone give those two views equal consideration or equal weight?

                      Here are another two views:

                      View 1: People should be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

                      View 2: Marriage is between a man and a woman.

                      Again, one of them can be supported by a number of arguments; the other is a personal opinion stated as if it were a fact. Can you guess which is which?

                      Why should they both be treated equally or both given equal weight?

                    2. Wow Ken, you convinced me. By just making a bunch of unsupported assertions that you apparently consider to be self evident, you convinced me.

                      Ken, do I really have to go through the various arguments against gay marriage? Are you really that uninformed and stupid? If you are I honestly feel sorry for you. And I really don’t have time to educate you.

                      If you would like to educate yourself, there are any number of threads that on here where the arguments for and against gay marriage and especially judicially mandated gay marriage have been fully explored. If you are too stupid or laze to read and understand those threads, the I don’t know what to tell you. But if you think gay marriage is that clear, you are just a blithering moron who should never be taken seriously.

          2. stonewalling on global warming,

            Lol! You fucking flake. How much credit did Bush get for backing the energy bill from our supposed progressive betters? None. Zip, zilch, nada.

            You actually believe in that shit! One of the great misdirection of resources in history. At least with pyramids and cathedrals we got something beautiful and marvelous to look at. With Green, not a goddamned thing in return.

            1. For a second, I thought I might have to dig up a link somewhere to demonstrate that there are a plenty of climate skeptics who couldn’t care less about the data.

              Climate change skeptics who can’t even bring themselves to admit, much less address, the idea that there might be good reason to be concerned–even if they ultimately disagree with the AGW conclusions.

              I know you were just kidding, but that’s exactly the kind of thinking I was talking about. …and you threw in something random about Bush somehow, too!

              Well done.

              Thank you.

              1. Climate change skeptics who can’t even bring themselves to admit, much less address, the idea that there might be good reason to be concerned–even if they ultimately disagree with the AGW conclusions.

                Why might there be good reason? The hockey stick? Oh that has been proven to be a lie. The models at West Anglia? Oh we know from the climategate e-mails those things were bunk and their creators knew as much.

                Just what evidence is there? And more importantly, even if there is who has a realistic plan to do anything about it?

                And lastly Ken, even if what you say is true, climate sketiscim pales in comparison to the fanaticism of its adherents. Ken, respected scientist have convinced themselves AGW is a threat to all human life?

                And conservatives are the dumb ones?

              2. An apocalyptic cult that uses satellites for the measure of its validity instead of astrology. You’re still just another apocalyptic cult. The Apocalypse is not going to happen no matter how much you wish for it, but that was never really the point. The point has always been to torture your fellow man for some ill defined greater good.

                1. An apocalyptic cult. Right.

                  On arguments like these, the issue should be decided. And this is the sort of thinking that the media should take seriously–and give equal intellectual weight?

                  You treat AGW the same way Republicans a couple of cycles ago treated Terry Schiavo.

                  And while you shout this, you want the media to treat your argument with just as much seriousness as anyone else’s? Otherwise you’re being misportrayed? Looks to me like the media’s got you down pat.

                  I suspect there are legitimate climate change skeptics out there, who spend most of their time trying to differentiate their own opinions from those of people like you.

                  You’re probably doing more damage to the cause of climate change skepticism than people who actually believe in climate change.

                  1. What are we to make of a political movement whose adherents make implausible claims like the Himalayan glaciers will melt in 30 years or that the human race will be extinct in a hundred years Ken?

                    We are supposed to take it seriously? And if you believe in this stuff, tell us why we should.

                    1. You read where I said there was room for climate change skepticism, right?

                      You seemed to be saying that there is evidence–it just isn’t conclusive. I hope you’re stickin’ to that because suggesting that there isn’t any evidence for AGW is ridiculous.

                      I’m not sure Killazontherun understands the difference between conclusive evidence and evidence. I’m not sure it would matter if he did. And if that’s the kind of thinking people associate Republicans with, I’d like you to consider that maybe it isn’t because of the media.

                      Maybe it’s because of what a lot of Republicans think.

                    2. Maybe it’s because of what a lot of Republicans think.

                      And how many Democrats think Global warming is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? Worse, how many of them believe in green energy unicorns or that driving a hybrid will help stop global warming?

                      But the Republicans are the dumb ones. Stop digging Ken.

                  2. You get funnier with every post, Ken. Global warming has never polled within the top ten concerns of the American people, and the influence of your goofy religion diminishes with every failure of industrial policy. I read the literature from thirty goes. Is Miami underwater, Ken. Nope. You want to extend that prediction by another thirty just to be safe? Failure, pure fucking failure. That is the master you serve.

  4. So, there’ll be more focus on Mormons’ 19th century killings than on Obama’s 21st century killings?

    1. Sadly, yes.

    2. Both parties support Obama’s 21st century killings so of course the media doesn’t care about them.

      1. Nailed it!

  5. I’m sort of guessing that most people, including Breitbart, understand that a publication of Obama’s shitty grades is not the most important factor in the election. Such a comeuppance of the arrogant “highly intelligent” Obama is not however totally without value. It would give me such a tasty little tidbit for conversations at cocktail parties in Marin County.

    1. Exactly. Forget Bush. Watch those scores be lower than Sarah Palin’s. Now that would be fucking sweat.

      Reason seems to be operating under the delusion that Breitbart is some kind of arm of the RNC and their job is to advance the proper campaign themes. No, Breitbart is about culture more than politics. They are engaged in something bigger and more long term than one election.

      1. Nick writes about this shit more than anyone, but he wants to do it while droning on about the sweet goodness of his neutrality.

        I’m not about to vote for either of these clowns, but I be damned if I’m not going to enjoy seeing the Marxoid bastard get his comeuppance.

  6. Instead of bitching about the crap, just stop covering it. People only post this idiotic stuff because it keeps getting hits. Hell, cover it and then just don’t link back so that the original article doesn’t get hits. This is starting to be like the people that watch Jersey Shore to bitch about the people that watch Jersey Shore

    https://reason.com/blog/2012/05…..te-journal

  7. The president of the United States has the entire apparatus of the most powerful military on earth at his disposal, including the nuclear arsenal. Therefore, I think that his personal character matters just a little, in addition to his governing philosophy and policies.

    I say that any person who has a serious chance of attaining this kind of power ought to be subject to the most reasonably thorough and vigorous deep background investigation a person can receive.

    And usually this is exactly what happens, but the so-called mainstream media fell so head in heels in love with their Obamessiah, that he somehow manages to get less scrutiny than a Department of Defense security guard gets in the course of his work.

    1. Well said.

  8. Screw SAT scores, I want to see transcripts from every presidential candidate showing that they got a B or better in a college econ class.

    Also: I think these Breitbart stories are aimed at debunking mainstream media mythmaking rather than aimed at Obama himself. So I don’t think it is a waste of time in that context. Exposing media bias and keeping the media honest is as important as this fall’s election.

    1. Plenty of communists got As in economics.

      1. You know who else got an A in Economics?

        1. Me, in every class I took. Except intro to stats. An 8 AM class and a FOB Indian professor isn’t a good combo. Regardless, can I get a cookie?

        2. Xaveria Hollander?

      2. Not intended to be a litmus test. I think it is important to know whether our politicians understand basic microeconomics and can perform the accompanying arithmetic.

    2. What Isaac said. Until ’91, you were likely to hear in class that capitalism was an inefficient and poverty producing system compared to Communism and central planning in general. Chicago School was an outlier through much of the Twentieth Century. Austrian? Fuggediaboutit.

      1. Maybe I should have been more specific: a basic micro class.

        1. You’re right. That would be a better measure.

  9. Nick, you are trying to hard. The disclaimer that WAPO isn’t Breitbart isn’t near enough to overcome the fact that you just wrote a long post that inferred they are one in the same.

  10. Any story whose lede is “On the wildflower-studded slopes of the Ozarks, where memories run long and family ties run thick, a little-known and long-ago chapter of history still simmers” deserves to be printed, even if it’s entirely false.

  11. Wow I never even thought about it like that dude.

    http://www.Privacy-Warez.tk

  12. Sorry, Nick, but Obama’s base of support doesn’t come from his record (which is shit, even from a left-wing perspective), it comes from his image and personality cult, facilitated by a servile media. Breitbart’s efforts are attempting to tarnish that image, to induce doubt in the faithful, and more importantly in the long term, to further erode trust in the legacy media. From a practical partisan perspective, it’s probably more effective than focusing on the issues.

    1. Great post; dead on the money. To be fair, back in ’08 there really wasn’t much of a record to examine. Obama had by far the thinnest, weakest resume of any man to get elected president in our history. He himself described his background as a “community organizer”, a job title that causes most normal Americans to respond with “what the fuck is that?”

      To be sure, now he does have a real record that be scrutinized, but he and his liberal media are the absolute last people in the world who want the election to be about his record.

  13. I’m from the Ozarks…as a matter of fact, there is a historical marker 500 yards from the house I grew up in south of Harrison, Arkansas that commemorates the point the settlers killed in the Mountain Meadows Massacre took off from.

    We had a Mormon church a few miles from there, too, and I have never heard anyone in the area single out Mormons for much of anything.

    In other words, bullshit.

    1. Wow! The anti-mormon hatred is so powerful, it’s been driven underground!

    2. I’m from the Ozarks

      So you have a reason to lie. Onward Narrative!

  14. But that teacher in North Carolina said we could be thrown in prison for speaking ill of Obama… who are we to disagree with her brilliance?

    /snark.

  15. Blaming Romney by association for something that happened in the 1800s is about as smart as blaming a Catholic presidential candidate for the Inquisition.

    And focusing on shit that happened 30 or 40 fucking years ago? Really?

    1. But remember modern liberals bear no responsibility for eugenics, Japanese internment, or any of the other gifts of the progressive movement. But Romney sure as hell is responsible for what Mormons did in the 1900s.

  16. …bailouts and “transformational” health care plan are genuinely unpopular…

    I’m pretty sure the bailouts and the health care plan are unpopular because people didn’t get the cash given to them personally and realize that the health care plan is not going to pay their doctors and hospital bills for them, not because of any great surge of libertarian thought.

  17. Two things at work here:

    1. Stories about economic policy don’t sell newspapers or generate page hits. Stories about Ozark hillbillies and (polygamous) Mormons do. The “serious” media and the tabloids differ primarily in that the former is less honest about their role. If the WashPost thought they could get away with putting a Kardashian on the front page every day, they’d do it in a heartbeat.

    2. Both parties are scared shitless that their core voters will stay home on Nov. 6. These peripheral issues generate more emotional responses and are designed to keep those voters engaged in what is, frankly, a dispiriting contest between two ugly candidates.

  18. “Obama has a truly dismal record to run on and to the extent that his detractors focus on inessential matters . . .”

    I think your wrong here. Obama will, and does, simply say that he has done the best that anyone could and that things would have been worse without his actions. Anyone pointing out his record will be shouted down with “it was necessary” and “you’re solution would make things worse”.

    At least this minor stuff has direct, documentary proof that it happened. Its easy to spin the stimulus into “best of bad option” territory, its harder to spin the grades on a transcript.

  19. Hi~~Everybody.

    I just have a new fashion caps one line.we have a big discount now.thousand kinks of caps like YMCMB New era hats caps etc.Please take a look.

  20. I think Obama is great. he is attractive powerful.
    http://www.fashion-caps.com

  21. I think Obama is attractive and powerful

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.