Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

While I’m Waiting – America, the land of the free?

July 27th, 2011 No comments

Wrongful conviction isn’t an epidemic that is new to our country. But through DNA evidence we’re learning how prevalent it is. From the University of Miami Innocent Project: Florida has one of the highest rates for wrongful convictions in the nation. Since 1973, over 24 Florida death row prisoners have been exonerated through the use of DNA and other scientific practices not available at the time they were convicted. But lack of DNA is not the only reason for wrongful convictions, false confidence in eye witness identification, improper police procedures and ineffective counsel can all add to a wrongful conviction.

Please visit www.freekelseysmom.com and http://raye-of-hope.org to find out more about wrongful convictions
Copyright © 2007-2009 [FreeKelseysMom.com]. All rights reserved.
No reproduction is allowed of the material in this video without written permission first. Every violation will be reported to the IFCC without hesitation

Duration : 0:4:51

Read more…

Brutal: Sarah Palin’s Record on Aerial Wolf Hunting

May 4th, 2011 25 comments

Sarah Palin’s record on the brutal practice of aerial hunting exposed.

Duration : 0:1:2

Read more…

Obama Kenyan Birth Certificate

April 12th, 2011 25 comments

More on the Obama Birth Certificate.
More evidence of forgery on his Birth Certificate that is posted on his web-site.
Could his possible adoption to Lolo Soetoro in Indonesia as a child be the reason Obama refuses to release his “Vault” long form?
The ONLY witnesses who have come forward to say they were at his birth, are HIS relatives from Kenya, who state he WAS born there.

Hence, if adopted his origional birth certificate would have been sealed and a new one issued with his legal name, Barry Soetoro.

The State of Hawaii considers a Certification of Live Birth is a secondary source of identification for the purpose of establishing Hawaiian ancestry; a Certificate of Live Birth is considered a primary source. To respond to challenges as to his eligibility for POTUS, BO first posted and then removed from his web site, a Certification of Live Birth, claiming this was his Birth Certificate. But such Certification is only issued when a birth certificate cannot be located in the records.

This might really interest you. As your video mentioned there are two (2) birth documents.

1The medical Birth Certificate filled out at hospital signed by doctor attesting to birth of infant, infant weight etc.
2. The legal document the Certificate of Live birth which is filled out at a Govt office. This document is a short form for legal purposes based off the medical record of the Birth Certificate.

So the question is…what was this secretary looking at when she typed out Obamas Certificateof Live Birth form in that Hawaii Govt office 47 years ago?? One clue is in the odd detail of the word “African” typed in to the space for “Race of Father”.If that secretary was looking at a AMERICAN style Birth Certificate from the hospital the “Race of Father” information would in 1961 have said “Negro” not “African”. After all “African” isnt a race.The State of Hawaii Govt secretary would have simply typed in “Negro” in the race slot. But she didnt. Why? Because she was looking at a Birth Certificate FROM KENYA. The poor Secretary didnt know what to do with that. She had to fill in the “Race of Father” blank but she didnt know if “Negro” was appropriate. After all Negro IS NOT A KENYAN TERM..KENYANS DO NOT USE THE WORD “NEGRO” its an AMERICAN usage. In fact sample Kenyan birth certificates I have looked at have no slot for “Race” at all. They dont think in those terms So the poor secretary simply typed in “African” and was done with it.

OBAMAS REAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS FROM KENYAN.OBAMA WAS NOT BORN ON US SOIL.

Matter of fact the law firm that Obama hired is from CAIR. Council on American-Islamic Relations. Why would Obama hire a muslim lawyer IF he was a christian?
Of the 1,143,358 resident and active attorneys in the United States, Obama selected Joe Sandler, of the Washington law firm Sandler, Reiff, and Young to represent him in this filing.

Sandler’s role for CAIR has been to intimidate people who dare to expose the goals and actions of radical Muslims.

Duration : 0:4:25

Read more…

USA should DEVELOP/STRATEGIC CO_OPer.@BRINGING JAPAN@late GLORY priorT SUNAMI/E QUAke@UPKEEP globAL ECONOMY?kr?

April 8th, 2011 1 comment

4 .1.2011 paris france

ASSOCIATED PRESS Questions in

Resolved Question: Why do unions in Ohio see SB5 as the death of unions? This law includes:?
• Makes public employee strikes illegal. • Generally restricts the topics on which unions can bargain to wages. Police, firefighters, nurses and other public workers may still bargain for safety equipment. • Eliminates step raises or automatic raises based on years of experience and years of training. • Reduces seniority rights. For example, it would prohibit workers from being laid off solely because they are new. • Bans “fair share’’ fee charged by unions for bargaining-unit members who don’t join the union or pay dues but receive negotiated pay and benefits. • Eliminates automatic union deductions for political campaigns without employee’s written consent. Sources: Ohio Legislative Service Commission, Associated Press http://news.cincinnati.com/print/article/20110330/NEWS0108/303300054/Ohio-House-Senate-approve-Senate-Bill-5

Open Question: Isn’t it strange how two presidential approval polls released on the same day are 11 points apart?
The Associated Press/GfK poll has Obama’s approval: 53%, disapproval: 45% The Quinnipiac poll has Obama’s approval: 42%, disapproval 48% http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/president-obamas-approval-rating-hits-a-new-low http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com/pdf/AP-GfK%20Poll%20March%20Topline%2003291_POLITICS.pdf Obama’s approval ratings have held steady at around 50 percent over the past month. But the disconnect between negative perceptions of the economy and signs that a rebound are under way could provide an opening for Republicans at the outset of the 2012 campaign. http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/president-obamas-approval-rating-hits-a-new-low Just 42 percent of those polled approve of the job Obama is doing, compared to 48 percent who disapprove, according to Quinnipiac. And in a bad sign for his upcoming 2012 re-election campaign, 50 percent of those polled say he doesn’t deserve another term in the White House.

Open Question: USA may DO DEVELOP/STRATEGIC CO_OPe MOST@BRINGING JAPAN@late GLORY BEFORE TSUNAMI/E QUA.@UPKEEP globAL ECONOMY?
3.30.2011 SUSSEX , UK NEWS RELEASE: ASSOCIATED PRESS Questions in Open Question: Is Obama plans for Implementing Policies that Grant Legal Status to Illegal Aliens without Approval of? Is Obama plans for Implementing Policies that Grant Legal Status to Illegal Aliens without Approval of Implementing Policies that Grant Legal Status to Illegal Aliens without Approval of Congress now on hold ? How will Mexico react to this latest set of delays ?WASHINGTON, March 29, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits against the Obama Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to obtain records detailing the Obama administration’s alleged plan to grant legal status to illegal aliens without going through Congress, a strategy commonly known as "stealth amnesty." Specifically, Judicial Watch is investigating an alleged plan by the Obama administration to suspend deportations of illegal aliens who are in the country unlawfully. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 11-604) and Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 11-606)). On July 2, 2010, Judicial Watch sent a FOIA request to DHS seeking the following information: "Any and all records of communications between the Department of Homeland Security and any of the following entities, concerning ‘deferred action’ or ‘parole’ to suspend removal proceedings against a particular individual or

Sorry, but that is NOT a question. It’s a series of extracts from news reports.
Why not ask what’s on your mind in twenty words or less.
You are then much more likely to get helpful answers.

Is the Proposed Koran Burning a Mass Tort? Could there be Liability if Harm Occurs?

March 30th, 2011 3 comments

This looks a lot like a slow motion disaster in the making.

Terry Jones, the pastor of the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida who is at the center of the Koran uproar, has so far resisted calls to cancel the bonfire.

President Obama and Eric Holder feel that there’s absolutely nothing they can do, apart from giving speeches, of course.

They have mis-interpreted the First Amendment, contrary to 230 years of US law, which is available in all law libraries. They feel that the First Amendment gives everybody an absolute right to say anything they want any time they want anywhere they want. They have decided to utterly disregard hundreds of Supreme Court cases that say that freedom of speech is limited (like every other right in the Bill of Rights).

One man’s right to free speech ends when that speech is highly likely to cause death or great bodilty harm to another person. Gen. Petraeus is on record in sworn testimony before the Congress that death or great bodily harm is the likely consequence of Terri Jones proposed speech act.

And yet the spineless, wormlike, Jellywaggle Blancmange Obamination — who has never seen any evil anywhere that he was willing to stand up to, says that he and Eric Holder’s hand are tied, there’s not a thing they can do — no injunction — no restraining order — not a thing — they are helpless.

Does that mean that every tort lawyer in the world is also helpless — and will be completely passive and inert if Terri Jones does his act and harm actually ensues.

See, then it’s not a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment is about prior restraint by the Federal government, not about tort suits brought after harm has been done by private tort lawyers.

Terri Jones and his Church and possibly his congregation members who participate in his act might very well be liable in civil law for all deaths and injuries that occur as proximate results of the proposed Koran burning. If a jury is satisfied that act A caused result B, and that result B was a clearly foreseeable consequence of act A, and that harm was done, then liability can be imposed as a matter of civil law. It’s called a mass tort — where a lot of people are hurt from a single act done by a single party — Terri Jones and his Church.

I think there’s also a case for damages based on the costs of increased security precautions that had to be put in place as a proximate result of the conduct of Terri Jones. So it’s like the Balloon Boy situation. One person causes a costly mass alarm that imposes otherwise unecessary costs on officials and law enforcement and security professionals.

Between these two torts Terri Jones will be out of business.

I think there’s also a Federal law that prevents malfeasors from profiting from book deals they make based on their bad acts. There may be a Florida law as well.

The fact that the President is a Jellywaggle Blancmange does not mean that Terri Jones is completely beyond the reach of American and world justice.

If the bad act is done the bad Karma will come to Terri Jones. I speak as a former member of the American Trial Lawyers Association (now retired).

We are not helpless.

We are not spineless.

When we see evil, we do something about it.
To the many out there who simply have no idea what the First Amendment protects, I have this question:

If Terri Jones shouted "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, when there was no fire, would his speech be protected by the First Amendment in your opinion?

Do you feel that the Supreme Court of the United States, in 100 opinions dating back 70 years, might possibly know more about the First Amendment, and what it protects, than you do based on Civics 101 that you slept through in High School?

Doh!

And naturally you would have the same opinion about the Ground Zero mosque, right?

If they started building and violence erupted, you would hold the mosque builders liable?

March 11 Earthquake Japonesa mostra:Sendai airport helicopter Hawaii tsunami footage

March 28th, 2011 10 comments

Japan’s most powerful earthquake since records began has struck the north-east coast, triggering a massive tsunami.Cars, ships and buildings were swept away by a wall of water after the 8.9-magnitude tremor struck north-east of Tokyo.

A state of emergency has been declared at a nuclear power plant, where pressure has exceeded normal levels.Officials say 350 people are dead but it is feared the final death toll will be much higher.In Tokyo many people are spending the night in their offices. But thousands, perhaps millions, chose to walk home. Train services were suspended.
There a tsunami triggered by the quake reached six miles inland in places carrying houses, buildings, boats and cars with it.

Japan’s ground self-defense forces have been deployed, and the government has asked the US military based in the country for help. The quake was the fifth-largest in the world since 1900 and nearly 8,000 times stronger than the one which devastated Christchurch, New Zealand, last month.

Thousands of people living near the Fukushima nuclear power plant have been ordered to evacuate.pressure inside a boiling water reactor at the plant was running much higher than normal after the cooling system failed.Officials said they might need to deliberately release some radioactive steam to relieve pressure.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had the US Air Force flown emergency coolant to the site.But the Japanese had decided to handle the situation by themselves.
Four nuclear power plants were shut down safely.

The tsunami went across the Pacific at 500mph right before it smashed into Hawaii and the West Coast of the United States.
Thousands of people evacuated in California, Oregon and Washington state.

The waves reached 6 and 7 feet near Crescent city California.
A tsunami warning was also in the Pacific to North and South America.
waves hit Miyagi and Fukushima and other coastal communities.A wave struck Sendai, destroying the farmland along with damaging cars and the airport runway.

Duration : 0:14:27

Read more…

Could Terri Jones be Held Liable if He Causes Harm?

March 27th, 2011 10 comments

Is the Proposed Koran Burning a Mass Tort? Could there be Liability if Harm Occurs?
This looks a lot like a slow motion disaster in the making.

Terry Jones, the pastor of the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida who is at the center of the Koran uproar, has so far resisted calls to cancel the bonfire.

President Obama and Eric Holder feel that there’s absolutely nothing they can do, apart from giving speeches, of course.

They have mis-interpreted the First Amendment, contrary to 230 years of US law, which is available in all law libraries. They feel that the First Amendment gives everybody an absolute right to say anything they want any time they want anywhere they want. They have decided to utterly disregard hundreds of Supreme Court cases that say that freedom of speech is limited (like every other right in the Bill of Rights).

One man’s right to free speech ends when that speech is highly likely to cause death or great bodilty harm to another person. Gen. Petraeus is on record in sworn testimony before the Congress that death or great bodily harm is the likely consequence of Terri Jones proposed speech act.

And yet the spineless, wormlike, Jellywaggle Blancmange Obamination — who has never seen any evil anywhere that he was willing to stand up to, says that he and Eric Holder’s hand are tied, there’s not a thing they can do — no injunction — no restraining order — not a thing — they are helpless.

Does that mean that every tort lawyer in the world is also helpless — and will be completely passive and inert if Terri Jones does his act and harm actually ensues.

See, then it’s not a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment is about prior restraint by the Federal government, not about tort suits brought after harm has been done by private tort lawyers.

Terri Jones and his Church and possibly his congregation members who participate in his act might very well be liable in civil law for all deaths and injuries that occur as proximate results of the proposed Koran burning. If a jury is satisfied that act A caused result B, and that result B was a clearly foreseeable consequence of act A, and that harm was done, then liability can be imposed as a matter of civil law. It’s called a mass tort — where a lot of people are hurt from a single act done by a single party — Terri Jones and his Church.

I think there’s also a case for damages based on the costs of increased security precautions that had to be put in place as a proximate result of the conduct of Terri Jones. So it’s like the Balloon Boy situation. One person causes a costly mass alarm that imposes otherwise unecessary costs on officials and law enforcement and security professionals.

Between these two torts Terri Jones will be out of business.

I think there’s also a Federal law that prevents malfeasors from profiting from book deals they make based on their bad acts. There may be a Florida law as well.

The fact that the President is a Jellywaggle Blancmange does not mean that Terri Jones is completely beyond the reach of American and world justice.

If the bad act is done the bad Karma will come to Terri Jones. I speak as a former member of the American Trial Lawyers Association (now retired).

We are not helpless.

We are not spineless.

When we see evil, we do something about it.
To the many out there who simply have no idea what the First Amendment protects, I have this question:

If Terri Jones shouted "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, when there was no fire, would his speech be protected by the First Amendment in your opinion?

Do you feel that the Supreme Court of the United States, in 100 opinions dating back 70 years, might possibly know more about the First Amendment, and what it protects, than you do based on Civics 101 that you slept through in High School?

Doh!

I would not allow him to get to that point, This would all be long over. My deputy’s would have already handled the
matter to my request, And we would be doing what we
are paid to do. Which is to continue to protect and serve.

Koran Burning — Does Obama’s Helplessness Mean that Everybody is Helpless?

March 24th, 2011 8 comments

Could Terri Jones be Held Liable if He Causes Harm?
Is the Proposed Koran Burning a Mass Tort? Could there be Liability if Harm Occurs?
This looks a lot like a slow motion disaster in the making.

Terry Jones, the pastor of the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida who is at the center of the Koran uproar, has so far resisted calls to cancel the bonfire.

President Obama and Eric Holder feel that there’s absolutely nothing they can do, apart from giving speeches, of course.

They have mis-interpreted the First Amendment, contrary to 230 years of US law, which is available in all law libraries. They feel that the First Amendment gives everybody an absolute right to say anything they want any time they want anywhere they want. They have decided to utterly disregard hundreds of Supreme Court cases that say that freedom of speech is limited (like every other right in the Bill of Rights).

One man’s right to free speech ends when that speech is highly likely to cause death or great bodilty harm to another person. Gen. Petraeus is on record in sworn testimony before the Congress that death or great bodily harm is the likely consequence of Terri Jones proposed speech act.

And yet the spineless, wormlike, Jellywaggle Blancmange Obamination — who has never seen any evil anywhere that he was willing to stand up to, says that he and Eric Holder’s hand are tied, there’s not a thing they can do — no injunction — no restraining order — not a thing — they are helpless.

Does that mean that every tort lawyer in the world is also helpless — and will be completely passive and inert if Terri Jones does his act and harm actually ensues.

See, then it’s not a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment is about prior restraint by the Federal government, not about tort suits brought after harm has been done by private tort lawyers.

Terri Jones and his Church and possibly his congregation members who participate in his act might very well be liable in civil law for all deaths and injuries that occur as proximate results of the proposed Koran burning. If a jury is satisfied that act A caused result B, and that result B was a clearly foreseeable consequence of act A, and that harm was done, then liability can be imposed as a matter of civil law. It’s called a mass tort — where a lot of people are hurt from a single act done by a single party — Terri Jones and his Church.

I think there’s also a case for damages based on the costs of increased security precautions that had to be put in place as a proximate result of the conduct of Terri Jones. So it’s like the Balloon Boy situation. One person causes a costly mass alarm that imposes otherwise unecessary costs on officials and law enforcement and security professionals.

Between these two torts Terri Jones will be out of business.

I think there’s also a Federal law that prevents malfeasors from profiting from book deals they make based on their bad acts. There may be a Florida law as well.

The fact that the President is a Jellywaggle Blancmange does not mean that Terri Jones is completely beyond the reach of American and world justice.

If the bad act is done the bad Karma will come to Terri Jones. I speak as a former member of the American Trial Lawyers Association (now retired).

We are not helpless.

We are not spineless.

When we see evil, we do something about it.
To the many out there who simply have no idea what the First Amendment protects, I have this question:

If Terri Jones shouted "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, when there was no fire, would his speech be protected by the First Amendment in your opinion?

Do you feel that the Supreme Court of the United States, in 100 opinions dating back 70 years, might possibly know more about the First Amendment, and what it protects, than you do based on Civics 101 that you slept through in High School?

Doh!
To Trader G.

Your characterization of my position clearly indicates that you did not read any part of it. If you had, you would know that my concern is force protection and for other Americans worldwide. Were you more circumspect and better informed, you would know that a lot of violence happened based on the Abu Gharaib photos, and the Gitmo Koran flushing. I know you will be there at Dover when the caskets come back from the extra Americans killed directly on account of the Terri Jones free speech occurance. You will explain to the families how Petraeus’ warning should properly have been ignored, and how the issuance of an injunction against Terri Jones would entail the complete and total cessation of all free speach by all Americans forever after. You will go on to explain that people always have a right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theather when there is no fire. If somebody gets hurt — too bad. That’s the price we pay for an absolutist version of the First Amendment. Think!

The whole thing is blown out of proportion..
This man is only using his right to free speech, or do you want it like the E.U. ??
A hate speech crime to speak out against Islam. When that day happens you can get your burquas ready ladies or face being stoned.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2010/September/Austrian-Faces-Charges-for-Criticizing-the-Koran/

P

What are your thoughts on this? (Sarah Palin)?

March 15th, 2011 12 comments

Five myths about Sarah Palin 1. Palin cost McCain the 2008 election. She didn’t. CNN’s 2008 national exit poll, for example, asked voters whether Palin was a factor when they stepped into the voting booth. Those who said yes broke for McCain 56 percent to 43 percent. With her by his side, McCain’s fundraising and support from conservatives improved.
2. Resigning as governor was rash. When Palin returned to Alaska , she confronted three problems. The political coalition on which she had based her governorship had collapsed. Her critics were using Alaska’s tough ethics laws to launch investigations into her behavior, sapping her finances and her energy. Finally, every time she traveled to the Lower 48, Alaskans criticized her for putting her political interests above the state’s. Palin’s solution was to resign. Her agenda stood a better chance of passing if Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell succeeded her as governor. As a private citizen, meanwhile, Palin could make enough money to pay her legal bills.
3. Palin and the tea party are destroying the GOP.The reality is that Palin and the tea party are saving the GOP by dragging it back to its roots and mobilizing conservative voters. Remember, by the time Palin arrived on the national scene, the Republican Party was depleted, exhausted and held in disrepute. An unpopular war in Iraq, an economy in recession and GOP corruption had driven away independents. Meanwhile, massive government spending and a liberal immigration policy had dispirited conservatives. In the wake of Obama’s historic victory, she and countless other grass-roots activists could have abandoned the GOP and turned the tea party into a conservative third party. They didn’t. They decided instead to refashion the Republican Party from the ground up, pressuring it to live up to its limited-government ideals. Now, two years after Obama’s win, Republicans have reaped major gains in the midterm elections. Palin and the tea party haven’t hurt the GOP one bit.
4. Palin is extreme. On many of the most important issues of the day, Palin holds positions that are squarely in the center-right of American political discourse. And many of those positions, not incidentally, are held by a large segment or even a majority of the public. For instance, neither the public nor Palin believes the stimulus worked. While most Americans may not share Palin’s views regarding "death panels," many join her in opposing Obama’s health-care overhaul. Over the past two years, Pew and Gallup surveys have tracked the public as it has moved to the right — not on just one or two issues but on a whole constellation of issues. Even on the controversial topics of abortion, guns and same-sex marriage, Palin is not far away from the center. A May 2009 Gallup poll, for example, found that a majority of Americans identified as "pro-life" rather than "pro-choice." In October 2009, Gallup measured record-low support for gun control. The public is divided on same-sex marriage, with about half the country joining Palin’s opposition.
5. Palin is unelectable. Without question, a Palin 2012 campaign would be an uphill battle. Palin is unpopular — massively so among Democrats, decisively so among independents. Even many Republicans don’t believe she’s ready to be president. But opinions can change. Look at the political resuscitations of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Hillary Rodham Clinton. If Palin works hard and runs an impressive campaign, wavering Republicans and skeptical independents may give her a second look. To earn that second look, she may need to find a big idea. It’s hard to become president without one. Reagan had supply-side economics and the end of detente with the Soviets. George W. Bush had compassionate conservatism and the freedom agenda. Obama had national unity and hope and change. At the moment, however, Palin still expresses her agenda mainly in negative terms, focusing on her opposition to Obama and the Washington establishment. She hasn’t defined her common-sense conservatism" in positive language. And she hasn’t found a unifying, exhilarating theme. Then again, she just might get along without one. After all, a presidential contest is a choice. The public might not love Palin. But by 2012, Americans might absolutely despise Obama. Two more years of a bad economy and an unpopular Afghan war and anything could happen.
Alvin….It is the "seasoned hand" that has resulted in the decline of America’s influence in the world. She could not do a worse job than Obama…. His bowing, scraping and pandering to every nation, including our enemies, not only has been a national embarrassment but has made us the "joke" of the world. Maybe a little fresh faced national pride, open and honest, is what our nation needs.
Governor Palin negotiated with a hard nose greedy oil industry and won a contract that even her severest critics say was a major win for the people of Alaska. She is plain speaking and honest….a refrehing change in American politics
Bobby…..I keep hearing she is "dumb"…..but none of her history would seem to support that conclusion…She had the highest approval rating for job performance of any governor in America…..she got straight A’s in school and was a member of the Honor Society….she earned a degree….. she has core principles which even when it is to her advantage….she won’t compromise. She is plain spoken, no vacillation or political double speak. Yes, she has made some gaffs…..misspoke…..but then so has President Obama…..and do not even mention the Vice President…..his gaffs are a national embarrassment and the stuff of which legends are composed

I think nothing about it.

I’m not obsessed with Sarah Palin.

NTEB: Abercrombie Admits There Are No Obama Birth Records In Hawaii!!

March 15th, 2011 5 comments

Death blow! Personal friend to Obama’s parents, Hawaii Gov. Abercrombie started a campaign to PROVE that Obama was born in Hawaii. But after a very public and exhaustive search of ALL hospital records, no evidence of ANY kind was produced by his search.

Duration : 0:6:5

Read more…