[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Why Bibi’s Speech Matters
Source: Free Beacon
URL Source: http://freebeacon.com/columns/why-bibis-speech-matters/
Published: Feb 28, 2015
Author: Matthew Continetti
Post Date: 2015-02-28 07:54:59 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 6158
Comments: 34

Why Bibi’s Speech Matters
It exposes the Iran deal as indefensible—and Obama's politics as bankrupt

The emerging nuclear deal with Iran is indefensible. The White House knows it. That is why President Obama does not want to subject an agreement to congressional approval, why critics of the deal are dismissed as warmongers, and why the president, his secretary of state, and his national security adviser have spent several weeks demonizing the prime minister of Israel for having the temerity to accept an invitation by the U.S. Congress to deliver a speech on a subject of existential import for his small country. These tactics distract public attention. They turn a subject of enormous significance to American foreign policy into a petty personal drama. They prevent us from discussing what America is about to give away.

And America is about to give away a lot. This week the AP reported on what an agreement with Iran might look like: sanctions relief in exchange for promises to slow down Iranian centrifuges for 10 years. At which point the Iranians could manufacture a bomb—assuming they hadn’t produced one in secret. Iran would get international legitimacy, assurance that military intervention was not an option, and no limitations on its ICBM programs, its support for international terrorism, its enrichment of plutonium, its widespread human rights violations, and its campaign to subvert or co-opt Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, and Syria. Then it can announce itself as the first Shiite nuclear power.

And America? Liberals would flatter themselves for avoiding a war. Obama wouldn’t have to worry about the Iranians testing a nuke for the duration of his presidency. And a deal would be a step toward the rapprochement with Iran that he has sought throughout his years in office. The EU representative to the talks, for example, says a nuclear agreement “could open the way for a normal diplomatic relation” between Iran and the West, and could present “the opportunity for shaping a different regional framework in the Middle East.” A regional framework, let it be said, that would leave American interests at risk, Israel one bomb away from a second Holocaust, nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East, and Islamic theocrats in charge of a large part of a strategic and volatile region.

I feel safer already.

Close to a decade of negotiations meant to end the Iranian nuclear program is about to culminate in the legitimization of that program and an enriched—in both senses of the word—empowered, and no less hostile Iran. Our government and the media that so often resembles its propaganda organ will attempt to characterize this colossal failure of nerve as a personal victory for a lame duck president and a milestone in international relations. It is important that they lose this battle, that the Iran deal is revealed to the world for the capitulation that it is, that the dangers of sub-letting the Middle East to the Koranic scholars of Qom and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps are given expression, not only for substantive reasons of policy and security but also because the way in which the advocates of détente have behaved has been reprehensible.

What the opponents of a bad deal with Iran have witnessed over the last few months is the transference of Obama’s domestic political strategies to the international stage. A senior administration official is on record likening an Iranian nuclear agreement to Obamacare, and the comparison makes sense not only in the relative importance of the two policies to this president, not only because both policies are terrible and carry within them unforeseen consequences that will not be manifest for years, but also because of the way opponents of both policies are treated by the White House. If they are not ignored or dismissed, their motives are impugned. They are attacked personally, bullied, made examples of.

The alternative to a bad deal is not a better deal or tougher sanctions, Obama says, but war: “Congress should be aware that if this diplomatic solution fails, then the risks and likelihood that this ends up being at some point a military confrontation is heightened, and Congress will have to own that as well, and that will have to be debated by the American people.” The opponents of a nuclear Iran aren’t sincere, Obama explained to Senate Democrats last month, but are merely acting at the behest of their (Jewish) donors. Congress has no role to play in either approving of or enforcing a deal with Iran, John Kerry says, because any attempt to strengthen America’s hand or verify that Iran is in compliance would be like “throwing a grenade” into the meeting room.

As for Netanyahu, he is called “chickenshit” by anonymous sources, the national security adviser says his decision to address Congress is “destructive” of the U.S.-Israel alliance, Kerry tells Congress they shouldn’t listen to Bibi because he voiced wan support for regime change in Iraq (a war that Kerry voted to authorize), the congressional liaison rallies the Congressional Black Caucus to boycott the speech, and the administration leaks to the AP its strategy “to undercut” his speech and “blunt his message that a potential nuclear deal with Iran is bad for Israel and the world.” The strategy includes media appearances and the threat of a “pointed snub” of AIPAC, which has done everything it can over the last several years to ignore or acquiesce to President Obama’s anti-Israel foreign policy.

This sort of contempt for one’s opponents has become so commonplace in American politics since the 2010 “bipartisan healthcare summit” where the president snidely told John McCain “the election’s over” that I suppose it was only a matter of time before it influenced the administration’s relationships with foreign powers. But it says something about this president that the only country in the world that he treats seriously as an opponent is the state of Israel—that he holds the Israeli government to a standard he applies to no other government, that he is openly hostile to the elected prime minister of Israel and not-so-secretly hopes for the prime minister to be replaced in the upcoming election, and that he threatens reprisal against an domestic interest group with predominantly Jewish leadership and membership for a disagreement he has with a foreign prime minister—as though Jews were interchangeable when they are not, as in the case of the “deli” where they were “randomly” gunned down, invisible.

Netanyahu’s speech on Tuesday matters precisely because it is a rebuke to the Obama mode of politics to which America has become numb. Netanyahu’s refusal to back down in the face of political and media pressure, his insistence in making his case directly and emphatically, is as much a statement as any of the technical and strategic and moral claims he will make in his speech. And by going to war against Bibi, the White House has inadvertently raised the stature of his address from a diplomatic courtesy to a global event.

Netanyahu’s commitment to warning America about a nuclear Iran has given him the opportunity to explain just how devoid of merit the prospective deal is. His speech is proof that Congress is a co-equal branch of government where substantive argument can triumph over vicious personal attacks and executive overreach and utopian aspirations. Of course Barack Obama can’t stand it.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: TooConservative (#0)

Let's learn more about our POS president!.....

Click here for Obama's little known history!

patriot wes  posted on  2015-02-28   7:58:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: patriot wes (#1)

Nice hijack post. But your article doesn't even mention Iran and the word Israel is found only once at the very end of the comments section.

Why not just post your own thread?

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-02-28   8:20:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: TooConservative (#0)

"... nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East"

Israel already has nuclear weapons. So maybe the author means, "nuclear proliferation other than Israel throughout the Middle East".

We can't have that. I mean, if Iran gets nuclear weapons, Israel won't be able to push around and intimidate other Middle East countries. Or blackmail the U.S. Why, Israel might have to sit down with the Arabs and actually negotiate for peace as we did with the Soviets.

Oh, the horror!

misterwhite  posted on  2015-02-28   8:50:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: misterwhite (#3)

Being a bootlicking fascist often goes hand-in-hand with hating Israel.

So this would be my total lack of surprise.     : |

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-02-28   9:27:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: misterwhite, Redleghunter (#3) (Edited)

We can't have that. I mean, if Iran gets nuclear weapons, Israel won't be able to push around and intimidate other Middle East countries. Or blackmail the U.S. Why, Israel might have to sit down with the Arabs and actually negotiate for peace as we did with the Soviets.

Oh, the horror!

I hate to enlighten you, but Iran doesn't have the slightest interest in sitting down and negotiate with Israel, rather her goal is to turn Israel into glass. That is why Israel cannot sit back and listen while John Kerry fools himself into thinking Iran is serious. No, Israel is going to hit Iran first, because she simply cannot allow that country to develop the bomb.

“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-02-28   10:17:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: misterwhite (#3)

Israel won't be able to push around and intimidate other Middle East countries.

Example please.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-02-28   10:27:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: TooConservative (#0)

...the dangers of sub-letting the Middle East to the Koranic scholars of Qom and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps...

As opposed to sub-letting the Middle East to the Koranic scholars of Medina and the Saudi Salafists. The Shia and Sunni need to have their Thirty Years War, in no way should we act to derail such a wonderful thing. The Iran Iraq War was but a preview of how lovey such a thing could be.

nativist nationalist  posted on  2015-02-28   10:33:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: nativist nationalist (#7)

As opposed to sub-letting the Middle East to the Koranic scholars of Medina and the Saudi Salafists. The Shia and Sunni need to have their Thirty Years War, in no way should we act to derail such a wonderful thing. The Iran Iraq War was but a preview of how lovey such a thing could be.

I know you're fond of this idea but it isn't in anyone's interests for this to happen. You seem to blithely assume there will be no spillover on the West. So far, that isn't how it's working out. In fact, millions of terrorism-susceptible types are already immigrating to the West as refugees. Be careful what you wish for.

I'm not sure history rewards those who want things to get worse so they can get better. But maybe it does over the long haul.

And, given the brutality and genocidal nature of such a war in the Mideast, you are hoping for the deaths of tens of millions of civilians across the Mideast. And, as always, women and children and the elderly will be hardest hit. Either that or signing up for welfare after they qualify as refugees and move in down the street from your house and live off welfare as refugees, like the entire Tsarnaev family did.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-02-28   10:39:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: GarySpFC (#5)

"rather her goal is to turn Israel into glass."

Iran has never gone to war with Israel.

-- They could have joined the other Arab states to fight Israel in the War of Independence in 1948. They didn't.

-- They could have joined the other Arab states to fight Israel in the Six- Day War in 1967. They didn't.

-- They could have joined the other Arab states to fight Israel in the Yom Kippur War in 1973. They didn't. (If they had, Israel would have lost.)

But now they'll attack Israel, knowing that Israel can incinerate them in response. You're not making any sense.

"No, Israel is going to hit Iran first, because she simply cannot allow that country to develop the bomb."

Is that a justification for striking first? Can other countries use that as justification for attacking a nuclear Israel?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-02-28   10:51:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: TooConservative (#4)

"Being a bootlicking fascist often goes hand-in-hand with hating Israel."

I criticize Obama's policies, too. That doesn't mean I hate America.

Or, in your mind, does it?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-02-28   10:53:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: misterwhite (#9)

Iran has never gone to war with Israel.

They just conduct a war by proxy, many times over decades.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-02-28   11:01:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: A K A Stone (#6)

Example please.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967, calling for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank.

UN Resolution 338 (1973). Unanimous. The same.

Plus 129 other UN Security Council Resolutions. Plus 45 UN General Assembly Resolutions. All ignored.

Plus the fact that Israel refuses to negotiate with the Palestinians to give them the land promised to them in the Israel/Palestine Partition Plan of UN 181 (1947). A nuclear Israel says, "My way or the highway and wtf are you going to do about it".

misterwhite  posted on  2015-02-28   11:08:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: misterwhite (#12)

The UN. Fuck the UN. Anyone who quotes UN resolutions is not a real American.

The UN is illegitimate and should be dismantled or destroyed by the US military.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-02-28   11:10:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: A K A Stone (#13)

"The UN. Fuck the UN. Anyone who quotes UN resolutions is not a real American. The UN is illegitimate and should be dismantled or destroyed by the US military."

That's why I intentionally added the word "unanimous" to the voting. You know what unanimous means? That means the United States agreed with the resolution.

So are you saying "Fuck the United States?" If so, then move to fucking Israel. I sure as shit don't want you here.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-02-28   11:25:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: A K A Stone (#13)

The UN is illegitimate and should be dismantled or destroyed by the US military.

Wouldn't that rescind the legal basis for the recognition of Israel as a country? The nascent U.N.'s early recognition of Israel was essential to its early history.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-02-28   12:01:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: TooConservative (#15)

Wouldn't that rescind the legal basis for the recognition of Israel as a country?

The UN didn't create Israel.

The legal right for Israel to exist is found in its arms and its peoples ability to hold the land. And Gods will.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-02-28   13:29:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: misterwhite (#9)

Iran has never gone to war with Israel.

-- They could have joined the other Arab states to fight Israel in the War of Independence in 1948. They didn't.

-- They could have joined the other Arab states to fight Israel in the Six- Day War in 1967. They didn't.

-- They could have joined the other Arab states to fight Israel in the Yom Kippur War in 1973. They didn't. (If they had, Israel would have lost.)

But now they'll attack Israel, knowing that Israel can incinerate them in response. You're not making any sense.

No. You'r not making any sense. Iran isn't run by the same regime they were in the 40's the 60's or the 70's. faulty logic.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-02-28   13:32:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: A K A Stone (#17)

"Iran isn't run by the same regime they were in the 40's the 60's or the 70's."

So those regimes liked Israel. It's the current regime that wants to nuke them. Is that what you're saying?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-02-28   13:41:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: A K A Stone (#16)

"The legal right for Israel to exist is found in its arms and its peoples ability to hold the land."

Sure. The land they were given by UN181.

That's the same UN Resolution, by the way, that carved out a piece of land for Palestine. Which Israel also took.

Now Israel can't understand why the Palestinians are pissed. Hell, Israel was even nice enough to offer the Palestinians a piece of what they took.

Ungrateful Palestinians rejected their offer!

misterwhite  posted on  2015-02-28   13:47:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: misterwhite (#19)

Here is what I'm saying. Israel needs more land. They need part of Jordan for starters.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-02-28   13:59:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: A K A Stone (#20)

Israel wants peace more than land. They are with Bibi for the most part at present because events seem to have demonstrated that they'll never get any peace no matter how many concessions they make so they want to keep the land.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-02-28   14:23:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: A K A Stone (#20)

"Here is what I'm saying. Israel needs more land."

And the Palestinians want some land.

Israel has twice as much land as they were originally given in 1947, land they took from what was to be a Palestinian State. The Palestinians are willing to settle for the West Bank and Gaza, much less than they were given by UN181.

Israel told them to go f**k themselves.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-02-28   16:42:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: misterwhite (#22)

Israel has twice as much land as they were originally given in 1947, land they took from what was to be a Palestinian State. The Palestinians are willing to settle for the West Bank and Gaza, much less than they were given by UN181.

Israel told them to go f**k themselves.

misterwhite

Where you from anyway?

The UN didn't give Israel any land.

What forces did the UN contribute? Who did the UN defeat? Who was the UN's generals? How many infantrymen did the UN have? How many tanks? How many enemies did they kill?

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-02-28   17:22:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: misterwhite (#9)

Iran has never gone to war with Israel.

-- They could have joined the other Arab states to fight Israel in the War of Independence in 1948. They didn't.

Iran was headed by a far different government in 1948. Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi was the king of Iran from 16 September 1941 until his overthrow by the Islamic Revolution on 11 February 1979.

-- They could have joined the other Arab states to fight Israel in the Six- Day War in 1967. They didn't.

See my first response above.

-- They could have joined the other Arab states to fight Israel in the Yom Kippur War in 1973. They didn't. (If they had, Israel would have lost.)

See my first response.

But now they'll attack Israel, knowing that Israel can incinerate them in response. You're not making any sense.

How many former Iranian Generals do you know?

"No, Israel is going to hit Iran first, because she simply cannot allow that country to develop the bomb."

Is that a justification for striking first? Can other countries use that as justification for attacking a nuclear Israel?

Iran will almost certainly hit Israel with the bomb once it's developed. Yes, her only option is to strike Iran first.

“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-02-28   17:27:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: misterwhite (#19)

That's the same UN Resolution, by the way, that carved out a piece of land for Palestine. Which Israel also took.

Now Israel can't understand why the Palestinians are pissed. Hell, Israel was even nice enough to offer the Palestinians a piece of what they took.

There never was a state of Palestine.

“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-02-28   17:34:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: A K A Stone (#23)

"The UN didn't give Israel any land."

The UN was charged with dividing the British Mandate into two territories -- one to become "Israel" and one to become "Palestine". The result was UN Resolution 181.

Educate yourself if you're going to weigh in on the debate.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-02-28   17:47:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: misterwhite (#26)

Lets try this again.

Where you from anyway?

The UN didn't give Israel any land.

What forces did the UN contribute? Who did the UN defeat? Who was the UN's generals? How many infantrymen did the UN have? How many tanks? How many enemies did they kill?

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-02-28   17:53:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: TooConservative (#21)

"Israel wants peace more than land."

Then why didn't Israel accept the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002?

All 22 members of the Arab League unanimously endorsed the peace initiative. As a matter of fact, every nation in the world supported the initiative except Israel.

It gives Israel everything it wants -- a halt to the conflict, a peace treaty with all the Arab nations, recognition of Israel.

Nope. Israel wants land more than peace.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-02-28   17:57:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: A K A Stone (#27)

"The UN didn't give Israel any land."

Yeah, they did. And where I'm from has nothing to do with that fact.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-02-28   18:01:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: GarySpFC (#25)

"There never was a state of Palestine."

Actually, the British Mandate was called Palestine. But it was not a state. Simply territory which was to be divided into two parts -- one part to become the future State of Israel and one part to become the future State of Palestine.

The 1948 War put a crimp in the plans of the Palestinians. They were too busy fleeing the advancing Israeli army and abandoning their homes and lands to sit down and form a government.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-02-28   18:08:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: GarySpFC (#5)

If the Arabs really believed Israel would use nukes their would be no Hezbollah nor Hamas.

"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-01   2:43:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: redleghunter (#31)

If the Arabs really believed Israel would use nukes their would be no Hezbollah nor Hamas.

Maybe, maybe not.

The Soviets displayed no real fear of America's atomic bombs or even its H-bombs prior to their own acquisition of nukes using espionage against America.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-01   7:31:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: redleghunter (#31)

If the Arabs really believed Israel would use nukes their would be no Hezbollah nor Hamas.

Hezbollah and Hamas are motivated by hate for Israel, not reason or fear.

“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-03-01   14:29:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: misterwhite, TooConservative, Y'ALL - Is there a, fference (#10)

TooConservative (#4)

"Being a bootlicking fascist often goes hand-in-hand with hating Israel."

I criticize Obama's policies, too. That doesn't mean I hate America. --- Or, in your mind, does it? ---- misterwhite

Amusingly, what misterwhite fails to realise, is that most here, (and previously at LP & FR) know damn well he hates our constitutional republic; --- because of his constant efforts to promote majority rule authoritarianism.

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-03   20:47:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com