The anti-Semitic conspiracy mongers who run around insisting that the sinister Jews secretly control US foreign policy have some explaining to do. Specifically, they need to explain how it is that the all-powerful Zionists and their American sock puppets have not succeeded in getting Jonathan Pollard released from prison.

Pollard, you will recall, is an American Jew and former employee of the US Naval Intelligence Command who was arrested for spying on behalf on behalf of Israel in 1986. Though he and the government concluded a plea agreement by which Pollard would plead guilty to one count of espionage, a crime carrying a maximum sentence of life in prison. He agreed to cooperate with the government’s investigation and damage assessment of the affair in the expectation of a reduced sentence. But this plea agreement fell apart, the government alleging that Pollard had violated its nondisclosure provision. Accordingly he was given a life sentence and has been behind bars, in solitary confinement for much of the time, for the past twenty-seven years.

The Pollard case became a cause célèbre. Many people in both Israel and the United States condemned the harsh sentence, pointing out that in other cases where the espionage benefitted a friendly foreign power, the government demonstrated considerable leniency. The State of Israel, while denying until 1998 that Pollard was an officially recruited intelligence asset, has pressed repeatedly for his release. In 1995 he was actually granted Israeli citizenship in anticipation of a release deal that later fell apart. On the other hand, many Americans—not all of them enemies of Israel or anti-Semites— have opposed Pollard’s release, arguing that espionage is a serious crime requiring serious punishment and noting that Pollard and his wife violated the terms of the original plea agreement.

The latest twist in the Pollard case is the work of the Obama Administration. In a desperate bid to get the moribund Israeli-Palestinian peace talks off square one, Secretary of State John Kerry floated a deal by which Pollard would be released in exchange for Israel’s release of several hundred detained Palestinians, including many who were convicted of murderous terrorism. Probably this idea was unwelcome to the Israeli government but typically it was the Palestinians who torpedoed it.

There’s not much doubt that the politics of his case explain why Jonathan Pollard is still behind bars. The US government is highly sensitive to the incendiary charge that Israel controls US foreign policy—a belief shared by various haters of Israel and Jew bashers on both the Left and the Right. Moreover, the US State Department and the US intelligence community have a hard time seeing why they should do Israel a favor in this instance—an understandable attitude. And even if one leaves political considerations aside there remains the fact that Pollard is guilty by his own admission of a serious crime against the United States of America.

Some of Pollard’s partisans have portrayed him as a hero: misguided, perhaps, but a man with his heart in the right place. Not only is this wrong as a matter of fact but it’s faulty from a public-relations standpoint. Though most Americans view Israel favorably, few have sympathy for a man they regard, colloquially, as a traitor. The argument that justice should be tempered with mercy is well and good. The claim that Pollard’s good intentions somehow trumped his clear duty to the United States is one that average Americans, perhaps not intimately familiar with the particulars of his case, summarily reject. And rightly so.

As for the anti-Semites and Jew bashers, no doubt they’ve spun some absurdly convoluted conspiracy theory to explain the fact, inconvenient to them, that despite Israel’s supposed control of the US government, Jonathan Pollard is still in prison. Yes, those wily Zionists may pretend that they want him released but in reality the Jew bankers who control the Federal Reserve and the City of London…well, you know.

My own view is that Pollard put himself in this trick bag. Nobody twisted his arm and forced him to betray America's secrets to a foreign power. That he spied for Israel rather than China or the USSR only slightly mitigates his guilt. Yes, his sentence was harsh, perhaps unduly so. But life is often unfair and if Pollard had honored his oath and kept faith with his country he’d be a free man today. He’ll be eligible for parole next year, at which time I believe Pollard should be released. By then he will have been imprisoned for nearly thirty years—condign punishment for a weighty crime. Therefore let justice be tempered with mercy. Let Jonathan Pollard go, I say, and let us close the book on this sad and painful case.

Posted by tmg110 at 8:21 AM EDT

Updated: Thursday, 3 April 2014 10:34 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Operation Overlord was entrusted to the British 21st Army Group, General Bernard Law Montgomery commanding. For the invasion of Normandy and the battle of the bridgehead, this force would consist of two armies: US First Army on the right and British Second Army on the left. As the bridgehead expanded and more Allied divisions came ashore, two more armies would be activated: US Third Army and Canadian First Army. At that point, the two US armies would come under the command of US 12th Army Group, General Omar Bradley commanding. Montgomery’s 21st Army Group would retain command of British Second Army and assume command of the new Canadian army. The whole array would then come under the command of General Eisenhower’s Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force, relocated from Britain to France.

Organizationally, the US and British armies stood in stark contrast to the defending German Army with its polyglot order of battle. Within each Allied Army, divisions of the same type were exactly alike (Canadian divisions were organized along British lines.) For example, every US Army infantry division consisted of three regiments, each with three infantry battalions, three field artillery (FA) battalions with a total of 36 105mm howitzers, one FA battalion with twelve 155mm howitzers, a mechanized cavalry reconnaissance troop, a combat engineer battalion and various support units. Equipment and weapons were standardized down to the level of the rifle squad. British infantry divisions were similarly organized: three brigades, each with three infantry battalions. US armored divisions were similarly standardized with three armored battalions totaling about 150 medium tanks and 60 light tanks, three armored infantry battalions, three armored field artillery battalions with a total of 54 105mm self-propelled howitzers, an armored cavalry reconnaissance squadron and various support units. Again, British armored divisions were broadly similar. In both armies the division was the largest unit with a fixed organization. Between two and four divisions constituted a corps, and three to six corps formed an army.

Both armies disposed of a large number of non-divisional combat units. Before the war the US Army had envisioned employing tank and tank destroyer (antitank) battalions in independent groups. By 1944, however, it had become clear that the group concept was flawed and most such battalions were attached directly to divisions. Non-divisional FA battalions were controlled by FA group headquarters, most of which were assigned to corps. Mechanized cavalry groups, consisting of two armored cavalry reconnaissance squadrons, were also corps-level assets. On the British side the picture was similar, though non-divisional tank battalions were grouped in independent brigades.

For the actual invasion, the assaulting divisions had a large number of supporting units attached to them, e.g. amphibious tank battalions, special combat engineer units, naval gunfire direction teams, etc. Most such units were detached again after the landing.

On D-Day itself, five Allied divisions would come ashore: From right to left US 4th Infantry Division (Utah Beach) US 1st and 29th Infantry Divisions (Omaha Beach), British 50th Infantry Division (Gold Beach), Canadian 3rd Infantry Division (Juno Beach) and British 3rd Infantry Division (Sword Beach). They would face elements of five German divisions: three static infantry divisions, one field infantry division and one panzer division. (For more information, see Dr. Leo Niehorster’s detailed German and Allied orders of battle for 6 June 1944.)

Posted by tmg110 at 11:21 AM EDT

Updated: Thursday, 3 April 2014 8:16 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Today the White House is crowing that Obamacare has met its goal of enrolling seven million people by the end of March.

I don't believe it for a nanosecond.

There is first the not-insignificant fact that the Obama Administration has been lying about the President's signature initiative since day one. So why, I ask myself, should the Administration be believed now?

Then there's the fact that the Administration's numbers are, not to put too fine a point on it, soft and fuzzy. We have absolutely no idea what the figure—seven million enrollees—actually means. Are they all paid-up customers? Seemingly not. Are they all people who previously had no health insurance? Probably not. Have enough young people signed up to keep Obamacare's financials on an ev en keel? Almost certainly not.

In typical Obama fashion, the needed triumph was achieved by proclaiming it. I doubt, therefore, than anyone outside the craven Obama claque will be impressed by all this—including the large number of Democratic senators and representatives whose jobs are on the line in November.

Posted by tmg110 at 3:58 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

For the defense of the Channel coast, Rommel’s Army Group B controlled some 45 divisions in the Seventh Army (Normandy) and the Fifteenth Army (Pas de Calais). If this total seems impressive, it must be borne in mind that the German divisions were very variable in quality. Nor did divisions of the same type all have an identical organization.

When the war began, the German infantry division was similar in structure to its American and British counterparts, consisting of three infantry regiments with three battalions each: the so-called triangular organization. Additional infantry divisions were mobilized in “waves” (Wellen), and the divisions of each wave were structured according to the tables of organization in force at the time of mobilization. These tables had to be revised several times during the war. Faced with an increasingly acute manpower crisis as the war dragged on, the Army found itself compelled to reduce the size of the infantry division. Usually one battalion was removed from each infantry regiment, leaving the division with a total of six (plus a so-called fusilier battalion with heavy weapons). The 352nd Infantry Division, defending Omaha Beach, was organized in this manner. The loss of manpower was partly offset by increasing the division’s firepower with more machineguns, mortars and infantry antitank weapons.

Some waves produced divisions for special purposes. Those of the Fifteenth Wave, for example, were the first of the so-called static (bodenständig) infantry divisions. As the designation implies, these divisions were configured for static defense. Generally they received lower-quality manpower, were armed with captured weapons and lacked sufficient transport to move as a unit. The 709th Infantry Division, defending Utah Beach, was a unit of this type, its artillery regiment being equipped with captured French and Russian guns. Of the Seventh Army’s fourteen infantry divisions, half were bodenständig types. There were also two Luftwaffe parachute divisions and a separate parachute regiment in the Seventh Army sector. Neither division was up to strength at the time of D-Day but organizationally they were similar to the prewar Army infantry division.

The Army’s panzer divisions were not formed in waves, but they too had been cut down in size, partly because of the manpower crisis and partly because their original organization had proved too unwieldy. The 1944 panzer division usually consisted of a panzer regiment of two battalions with about 150 tanks, two panzer grenadier regiments each with two motorized infantry battalions, an artillery regiment with one motorized and one self-propelled battalion, an armored reconnaissance battalion, and various supporting units. But no two were exactly alike, being equipped with whatever happed to be available at the time they were raised or rebuilt. The panzer and panzer grenadier divisions of the Waffen SS were similar but larger and usually had the latest equipment.

Besides its divisions, Army Group B also disposed of a large number of separate brigades, battalions and static coast artillery batteries. Prominent among these units were the so-called East (Ost) battalions, whose personnel were drawn from various ethnic groups in occupied Russia: Ukrainians, Georgians, Lithuanians, Cossacks, etc. The officers and NCOs, however, were German. Lightly armed and sketchily trained, the Ost battalions were of low combat value. Most were attached to the static infantry divisions.

It was with this somewhat motley array that the German Army in the West confronted the invader: General Bernard Law Montgomery’s 21st Army Group.

Posted by tmg110 at 3:12 PM EDT

Updated: Saturday, 29 March 2014 3:14 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Anyone can fall victim to an attack of foot-in-mouth disease. When FIMD strikes, the polite thing for other people to do is ignore it and move on to the next thing—except when it happens to a celebrity. Then it’s okay to laugh.

So, Gwyneth Paltrow—BWAAAAHAHAHAR!!! Did you really, really opine that you have it rougher than the average working mom? Yes, you did, and though I can’t speak for Mr. & Ms. Average American, I must say that your sad tale of woe tore at my heart. Just imagining the travails of a two-week location shoot in the wilds of Wisconsin makes my blood run cold. Having spent many an Army Reserve annual training tour at rustic Fort McCoy, I’m familiar with the hardships of life on the other side of the Cheddar Curtain. Still wake up screaming, in fact.

But enough about me—back to dear Gwyneth. This wasn’t her first bout with FIMD. In 2006 she informed the world that she preferred English people to Americans because, you know, they’re so much more civilized. Apparently she’s never been molested by a pack of drunken soccer hooligans.

Seriously, though, while I realize that Tinseltown celebs tend not to be the sharpest knives in our national cutlery drawer, how dim must Gwyneth be to honestly believe that she, a highly compensated star with a retinue of personal assistants, drivers, nannies, housemaids, etc. at her beck and call, actually has it tougher than an ordinary working mom? But let’s turn the soapbox over to an actual working mom who replied to Gwyneth via an open letter in the New York Post:

“Thank God I don’t make millions filming one movie per year” is what I say to myself pretty much every morning as I wait on a windy Metro-North platform, about to begin my 45-minute commute into the city. Whenever things get rough, all I have to do is keep reminding myself of that fact. It is my mantra.

And I know all my fellow working-mom friends feel the same. Am I right, ladies? We’re always gabbing about how easy it is to balance work and home life. Whenever I meet with them at one of our weekly get-togethers—a breeze to schedule, because reliable baby sitters often roam my neighborhood in packs, holding up signs peddling their services — we have a competition to see who has it easier. Is it the female breadwinners who work around the clock to make sure their mortgages get paid, lying awake at night, wracked with anxiety over the idea of losing their jobs? Or is it the mothers who get mommy-tracked and denied promotions? What about the moms with “regular” 9-to-5 jobs, who are penalized when their kids are sick and they don’t have backup child care?

Those women are living the dream, I tell you!

There’s more and it’s pretty funny. But if Gwyneth Paltrow were to read it—or have somebody read it to her—I doubt she’d see the point. How could those shivering moms on the Metro-North platform ever understand the toil and drudgery of the celebrity lifestyle?

Oh, and by the way, Gwyneth. When your daughter grows up, she’s going to get back at you for naming her Apple. Trust me on that…

Posted by tmg110 at 1:08 PM EDT

Updated: Saturday, 29 March 2014 1:52 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

The malicious stupidity that characterizes the Democratic Party and, by extension, the entire left/liberal/progressive spectrum, has been well on display recently. As is frequently the case, the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, is setting the standard. Recently he charged—on the Senate floor—that the Koch brothers, those chief horribles in the demonology of progressives, are “un-American.” It’s un-American, you see, to disapprove of and argue against the policies that Harry Reid, Barack Obama, etc. support.

Supposedly Reid’s problem with the brothers is that their money is corrupting American politics. We can’t have filthy rich plutocrats using their personal fortunes to promote their ideological preferences! This from a politician whose party greatly benefits from a veritable army of fat cat billionaires, with George Soros leading the charge. That’s the stupid part of Harry Reid’s slur.

The malicious part of it is—or ought to be—obvious. On the Senate floor, protected by congressional privilege, Reid stood up and called two American citizens un-American. Not because they adhere to the enemies of the United States, or give our enemies aid and comfort, or advocate the subversion of the constitutional order, but just because they’re politically opposed to Harry Reid and his party. And not one member of that party that I know of has condemned Reid for his odious name-calling. You can just bet, though, that if someone were to call Harry Reid un-American on the Senate floor, or on TV, or on a conservative talk radio show, he and the rest of them would squeal like stuck pigs. Well, I won’t go there—not quite. Without attacking Senator Reid personally I will merely observe that his behavior in this matter was un-American. In the extreme.

Posted by tmg110 at 11:31 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Much has been made of the fact that on 6 June 1944, Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, was absent from Normandy. The commander of Army Group B was on leave in Germany—his wife’s birthday happened to fall on 6 June—and he was due to meet with Hitler before returning to his headquarters.  Bad weather and rough seas were predicted for the English Channel, and Rommel judged that there was little chance that the Allied invasion would be launched during the first week of June. This was a reasonable assessment, though it happened to be mistaken. Advised that a brief improvement in weather conditions was likely around 6 June, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander Allied Expeditionary Force, gave the order to go.

Though it certainly was unfortunate from the Germans’ point of view that Army Group B’s able, energetic commander was absent on the day of the invasion, their command problems went deeper than that. On paper the chain of command seemed clear enough. At the apex stood Adolf Hitler, the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. His orders were transmitted via the Armed Forces High Command—Oberkommando der Wehrmacht or OKW. Next in the chain was Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt, the Commander-in-Chief West— Oberbefehlshaber West or OB West. From his headquarters in Paris Rundstedt commanded all German forces in France and the Low Countries, including Rommel’s Army Group B along the Channel coast. Army Group B controlled two armies, Fifteenth Army in the Pas de Calais sector and Seventh Army in the Normandy sector.

But in typical Third Reich fashion, this seemingly clear chain of command was in fact a muddle. To begin with, the dispute over tactics between Rundstedt and Rommel led to the dispersal of the strategic reserve: seven panzer and panzer grenadier (mechanized infantry) divisions in the Army Group B area. Four of these divisions were allotted to a headquarters called Panzer Group West, nominally under the command of OB West. The other three were allotted to the XXXXVII Panzer Corps, nominally under the command of Army Group B. One of these, 21st Panzer Division, was designated as Seventh Army reserve, i.e. the army commander could order it into action on his own authority. Moreover, the four divisions of Panzer Group West were in OKW reserve, i.e. they could not be ordered into action by either Rommel or Rundstedt but only by Hitler. Thus of the seven powerful divisions that constituted the main striking power of the German Army in the Normandy area, only one was in position to intervene against the invasion on D-Day itself. The rest were either too far away or outside the control of the commanders on the spot.

The intelligence picture was equally muddled. The German command’s conclusion that the Pas de Calais would be the likely Allied landing site was largely the process of staff analysis and supporting evidence proved difficult to come by. Air reconnaissance coverage was spotty, while the Germans’ intelligence networks in Britain had mostly been penetrated and rolled up or turned. The well-known Allied deception plan, Operation Fortitude, sowed further confusion. This involved the creation of a phantom invasion force under the command of Lieutenant General George S. Patton, supposedly preparing for a landing in the Pas de Calais sector. Thus even when intelligence pointing to Normandy did come to hand, the German command was not completely convinced by it. This air of uncertainty persisted even after 6 June, delaying the redeployment of German forces from the Pas de Calais to Normandy.

On the afternoon of 6 June the 21st Panzer Division mounted a counterattack against the British beaches that briefly penetrated to the Channel coast. But confusion reigned at all levels of the German command, the division had suffered significant losses, and that evening it fell back. The one chance, such as it was, for the Germans to roll up part of the Allied beachhead was missed. Even so, as I described in earlier posts, in the face of a stubborn German defense the Allied plan miscarried and many critical objectives were not reached. What might have happened if Rommel’s proposed defensive layout had been followed must be speculative, but certainly the presence of three or four panzer divisions in the immediate vicinity of the invasion beaches would have posed a serious problem for the Allies. On the other hand, if Rundstedt’s ideas had prevailed, the Allies would have faced the prospect of an encounter battle against a large—and largely intact—force of veteran German panzer divisions, beyond the range of Allied naval gunfire support. Given the substandard performance of many US and British divisions in the actual Battle of Normandy, such an encounter battle was unlikely to have been a walkover. Probably thanks to their overall superiority, particularly in the air, the Allies would have prevailed no matter how the campaign developed—but not all victories are created equal. Costly as it was, the Battle of Normandy could have been costlier still for America and Britain.

Posted by tmg110 at 10:56 AM EDT

Updated: Saturday, 29 March 2014 10:12 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

In this, the winter of Barack Obama’s discontent, it’s both instructive and entertaining to spare a backward glance for the Obama of 2008: that transcendent figure who, we were assured, was set to transform the world. So here’s a classic of the genre (and a tip of the hat to National Review’s Jim Geraghty for drawing my attention to it). Writing in Slate on December 3, 2008, Emily Yoffe gushed:

For researchers of emotions, creating them in the lab can be a problem. Dacher Keltner, a professor of psychology at the University of California-Berkeley, studies the emotions of uplift, and he has tried everything from showing subjects vistas of the Grand Canyon to reading them poetry—with little success. But just this week one of his postdocs came in with a great idea: Hook up the subjects, play Barack Obama's victory speech, and record as their autonomic nervous systems go into a swoon.

In his forthcoming book, Born To Be Good (which is not a biography of Obama), Keltner writes that he believes when we experience transcendence, it stimulates our vagus nerve, causing "a feeling of spreading, liquid warmth in the chest and a lump in the throat." For the 66 million Americans who voted for Obama, that experience was shared on Election Day, producing a collective case of an emotion that has only recently gotten research attention. It's called "elevation."

 >snip<

Keltner believes certain people are "vagal superstars"—in the lab he has measured people who have high vagus nerve activity. "They respond to stress with calmness and resilience, they build networks, break up conflicts, they're more cooperative, they handle bereavement better." He says being around these people makes other people feel good. "I would guarantee Barack Obama is off the charts. Just bring him to my lab."

Mmmm-hmmm—Barack Obama as a “vagel superstar.” It’s a fragment of psychobabble that neatly encapsulates the Myth of Barry as retailed to a gullible electorate in 2008. But what is interesting about it, I think, is this: Keltner’s analysis, as interpreted by Yoffe, is actually a pretty good pointer to the source of Obama’s current plight. “For the 66 million Americans who voted for Obama, that experience [transcendence] was shared on Election Day, producing a collective case of an emotion…” A less gooey and more accurate way of putting this would be to say: There was no there, there.

To be fair, Yoffe briefly considers this possibility: “The 58 million McCain voters might say that the virtue and moral beauty displayed by Obama at his rallies was an airy promise of future virtue and moral beauty. And that the soaring feeling his voters had of having made the world a better place consisted of the act of placing their index fingers on a touch screen next to the words Barack Obama. They might be on to something.”

But probably not. Those 58 million boobs have been dismissed and forgotten by the time that Yoffe sums up: “But this time, elevation won. And expect that on Inauguration Day, even if the weather's frigid, millions will be warmed by that liquid feeling in their chests.” Yes, quite. And the fact that elevation won—not superior policies or logical argument or realistic analysis—pretty much explains the incredibly shrinking Barack Obama of 2014. And if our community organizer-in-chief has a liquid feeling in his chest, it’s probably acid reflux.

Posted by tmg110 at 8:10 AM EDT

Updated: Thursday, 27 March 2014 8:15 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

In their increasingly desperate quest for a reason to feel hopeful about their prospects in this year's elections, Democrats have grasped at another straw. Well, actually it's a joint: “Democrats' great green hope? Americans only want to vote for marijuana.” That’s the good word from the latest George Washington University Battleground poll. It seems that 73% of the registered voters surveyed favor medical marijuana and 53% percent favor decriminalization of pot. So the Dems have got the stoner vote locked up. If the election were held tomorrow and marijuana was the only issue, the Dems would win in a landslide.

Or maybe not. I happen to support the legalization of pot myself: The more Democrats who smoke pot, the fewer who will manage to find their way to the polls, or even remember that it’s Election Day.

Posted by tmg110 at 1:14 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

it looks as though the Supreme Court is about to hand the Obama Administration another embarrassing defeat. Yesterday the Justices heard arguments in the Hobby Lobby contraception mandate case, and a clear majority of them seemed skeptical of the government’s position. Progressives, of course, have retreated into their “corporations aren’t people” stronghold, insisting that religious liberty and, indeed, all constitutional rights are for individuals only. But in point of fact, they’re pretty selective in their deployment of this argument. Progressives champion laws that allow a minority- or women-owned business to bring discrimination lawsuits, a point made by Chief Justice Roberts. On the other hand, a prosecutor can indict an entire corporation and I doubt that anyone on the Left would be willing to see that power taken out of the hands of law enforcement. Anyhow, the Court has held that corporations possess First Amendment rights as regards free speech. What, therefore, is the argument for denying corporations First Amendment rights as regards religion?

During the Clinton Administration a law designed to defend religious liberty from just such an attack as the one being mounted against Hobby Lobby was enacted with bipartisan support. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act stipulates that when government interferes with the free exercise of religion, it must clearly demonstrate a compelling interest and impose the "least burdensome" option. This is a high bar and the contraception mandate doesn’t clear it. The arguments of the Obama Administration and feminists to the contrary notwithstanding, respecting the religious freedom of Hobby Lobby’s owners would not devastate the rights of women. Contraception is cheap and widely available and will remain so even if Hobby Lobby doesn’t cover it in its employee health plan. Nor is it the case that a Supreme Court decision adverse to the Administration’s position will result in a corporate rush to dump contraception coverage. A few additional companies here and there may claim the same religious exemption, and the courts are certainly competent to rule on the merits of each such claim.

The reasons given by its supporters for the retention of the contraception mandate are, therefore, not only unpersuasive but dishonest. (Rather hysterically, Sandra Fluke calls the possibility of its being struck down a “catastrophe” for women.) No, this is just one more example of the Obama Administration’s—and the Left’s—hostility to religion. As such they deserve the sharp rebuke that the Supreme Court seems poised to deliver.

Posted by tmg110 at 12:53 PM EDT

Updated: Wednesday, 26 March 2014 12:59 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink