« Heads Republicans Win, Tails Democrats Lose | Main | Lowest Unemployment Rate In Five Years »

The Outcome Is Still In Your Hands

My column today is about how the outcome of Tuesday's election is in your hands. In spite of what you may have heard, not only have the votes not all been counted yet, but most votes have not even been cast yet. I voted yesterday using NC's early voting option and turnout was incredibly low. Please don't sit this one out! Even in places where the races appear to be already decided one way or the other, there are other people on that ballot that need your vote. Here in NC we have judges, school board, and local representatives and senators on the ballot. Don't let them down.

I devote a good part of the column to listing some ways the media has worked for Democrats to move public opinion polls. From a brief survey of the morning "news" chat shows, I see they are still at it, too, and that is why the new media must swarm all over the NYT's story today about Iraqi nukes. Spread the word, then get out the vote!

From my column:

"Democrats have offered no positive plan for America and without the assistance of an all too-willing-to-oblige media I believe they would be behind in the polls. The media can move the polls, but they can't drag anyone's bottom out the door to vote. Regardless of how the polls say people intend to vote, it doesn't count unless those voters expend the energy to cast that vote at their polling place.

Voters still hold the power to determine the outcome of the election and in many, many races, as Scott Elliott of Election Projection reminds me, the margins are razor thin. In these final days leading up to the election, don't let those in the media decide who is going to win or lose. Make that decision for yourself by casting your vote and by helping to "get out the vote" of others. Volunteer for your local candidate or party, or use online tools such as the excellent one provided at the RNC website that allows volunteers to make GOTV calls from home. Don't stop working until the final vote is counted, because the outcome really is in your hands."

If you haven't already done it, click on the RNC link above and get busy.



TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Outcome Is Still In Your Hands:

» Conservative Outpost linked with Daily Summary

» Church and State linked with If Jihadists could Vote . . . it would be Democrat

Comments (25)

From your column, Lorie (em... (Below threshold)
Lee:

From your column, Lorie (emphasis mine).

The most despicable way the media have helped Democrats the past year is through their reporting on Iraq and the war on terror. When violence in Iraq picked up this month, just before the election, it was often reported in the context of what bad news it was for Republicans, but rarely if ever was it reported in the context of that being a strategy employed by terrorists to influence the elections.

The polls show that the violence is indeed "bad news for the Republicans". The polls are a metric that prove that to be a fact.

The notion that the increased violence is a terrorist strategy is just a theory. To my knowledge, no terrorist organization has made a statement to that effect. It's a convenient theory if you are concerned about the fact that the violence is hurting Republican re-election prospects.

Newspapers report facts. Faulting them for not publishing theories that lessen the damage of the facts that are reported is silly - for them to publish those theories would be exactly the kind of partisanship that you are faulting them for in the first place.

So partisanship reporting in the media is ok so long as it helps Republicans?

Bottom-line, conservatives ignore the bias present in conservative media like Fox News, and therefore, in my humble opinion, have no right to cry about perceived bias in other media. If you tolerate it in Fox News reporting, then quit complaining about it elsewhere.

It's this same hypocrisy that is hurting the conservative movement in all areas. In the Republican party "ideas" -- solutions -- courses of action -- have been replaced by ideologies like "stay the course". What the f*ck does "stay the course" mean? It' just a jongoistic propaganda slogan.

Get real. The Republican party has running out of steam(ideas) - and all that's left is a "get out the vote" machine, with no direction except "staying the course". That's what lost this election for the Republicans -- not the liberal MSM. They're just accurately reporting the facts.

The terrorists ... (Below threshold)
Peter S:
The terrorists told WorldNetDaily an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are "tired."

They rejected statements from some prominent Democrats in the U.S. that a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency, explaining an evacuation would prove resistance works and would compel jihadists to continue fighting until America is destroyed.

They said a withdrawal would also embolden their own terror groups to enhance "resistance" against Israel.

"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52747

Looks like the terrorists are indeed using "a strategy employed by terrorists to influence the elections."

The terrorists want Democra... (Below threshold)
Lee:

The terrorists want Democrats to win, of course. The free world wants Democrats to win also. The world is a much more dangerous place under Republican rule.

A statement to that effect, that everyone wants the Democrats to win, does not prove that the violence increase is a strategy to move the election towards the Democrats. Reporting that theory as fact would be erroneous, given what's known, including the conservative blog post you quoted, Peter S, that reportedly is based on a conversation with terrorists.

The polls show a majority of Americans want the Democrats to win the election too. Those are people I'm listening to, not the terrorists.

Republicans appear interested in listening to terrorists when it improves their chances of holding control of congress. Why aren't they listening to the majority of Americans who want us out of Iraq?

Lee...Straight from ... (Below threshold)
Diane:

Lee...
Straight from the big guy, the one Republicans have "forgot"...

Osama Bin Laden: America's "Combat Strategy Is Heavily Dependent On The Psychological Aspect Of War ... Which Hides The Cowardice And Lack Of Fighting Spirit Of The American Soldier." BIN LADEN: "It has been made clear during our defending and fighting against the American enemy that this enemy's (USA) combat strategy is heavily dependent on the psychological aspect of war due to its large and efficient media apparatus and of course its indiscriminate aerial bombing which hides the cowardice and lack of fighting spirit of the American soldier. ... Likewise, let me remind you of the defeat of the American forces in Beirut in 1982, soon after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, when the Lebanese resistance was personified by the truck laden with explosives that struck the main military base of the US Marines in Beirut, killing 242 soldiers - towards Hell was their destination and what an evil destination that is." (Translation Of Purported Bin Laden Audio Message, Posted On Islamist Site, 2/14/03)

For more quotes, go to..."IN THEIR OWN WORDS"
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060905-7.html

The JOB of the newspaper & other media is to report facts. Much of the basics to their "stories" are true...but most articles have missing facts & the authors throw in unnecessary adjectives, etc, which influence opinion---especially in headlines.

Diane,Osama needs ... (Below threshold)
astigafa:

Diane,

Osama needs George; George needs Osama. Osama bin Yo Mama knows that if the Democrats come in big, we will not be launching missles at Iran and thereby making more friends for him and his terrorist allies. He would say anything to drive Americans to vote Republican. A state of constant war in the Middle East is his dream come true. On some level, you know this.

Similarly, if Osama laid down his arms tomorrow, Bush would weep. Keeping Americans scared is his mission, and anything that lessens that fear is anathema to him. As long as Osama's out there, Bush can maybe convince people that, with the Democrats in control, all of our staff officers and intellegence people will go limp and will no longer be able to function. But a state of constant war is Bush's dream come true. He is Osama's best friend.

You're not far behind.

Hi, LorieIt is<... (Below threshold)
John:

Hi, Lorie

It is true that violence has picked up this month, and it is also right before the election.

I've been tracking the trends now for over 2-1/2 years.

It's also true to say that violence has been increacing, not just over the last month, but over a period of years.

This is true for the US soldier death count, Iraqi civilian death count, number of attacks against military and civilian targets in Iraq, and international terrorist attacks world wide.

Punch the monthly numbers into Excel, and let it draw the graph, then add a linear trend line.

John

Lee,If you had sai... (Below threshold)
Peter S:

Lee,

If you had said that "The world is a much more dangerous place since the advent of terrorism," I might agree. This is a war on terror. It behooves ALL voters in the United States to listen to EVERYONE since our vote has a global impact. Using polls to support a position is applaudable, however, one has to listen to what the enemy is saying and look at what the enemy is doing to get the whole picture. The enemy are the terrorists; not the Republicans.

Well said, Peter, well said... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Well said, Peter, well said. You're right.

astigafa needs psychologica... (Below threshold)
Chet Youbetcha:

astigafa needs psychological help. It's thanks to Bush and the Republicans that numerous terror plans have been thwarted, that Saddam is out of power, and that lives have been saved. If it had been up to the Democrats, the protective measures that have saved lives would have been voted down (Dems think invasion of privacy is a greater crime than terrorists flying planes into buildings killing thousands, I guess). The economy is booming, unemployment is down, and you're still sitting here thinking the Republicans are worse than Osama and his terrorists. You're fucking delusional.

Let me provide another thou... (Below threshold)
John:

Let me provide another thought on why "The War on Terror" isn't a workable concept.

One of the quotes in the combined intelegence report was that; "The war in Iraq is shaping a new generation of leaders and operatives"

Here's why...

We consider ourselves a peacful, god fearing nation. We've done some really great things around the world.

Until somebody pokes us in the eye...

Then we go nuts.

The Japanese sucker punched us in a sneak attack at Pearl Harbor on a military target. Our final word on that was to ignite twin suns over civilian targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, burning a half million women, children, and civilians alive, or causing them to die horrible deaths from radiation.

Our buddies the Isralies, since the start of the Palestenian uprising, kill about 6 to 10 people for every one of their people killed.

When one of their soldiers was kidnapped, they went berserk, invading Lebanon, blowing up civilian infrastructure, killing hundreds of people and causing billions of dollars of damage.

Finaly, as our most familiar example; 9-11. A dozen Saudis take out two iconic buildings in New York, killing almost 3,000 innocient civilians. We invade Afghanistan when they refuse to give up Osama Bin Laden. Our rage is so blinding that we then invade an unrelated country, and kill well over a half million more innocients. Women and children. Old men. Non combatents.

Now, to the point...

If killing 3,000 of your people leads you to accept killing 650,000 of their people, how do you think they are likley to react in turn?

Wouldn't you expect that if they occupied your country, you'd fight back?

So, why do we assume these are "barbarians"? Should they just lie down and die, because it's cheaper and easier for us?

So, if somebody invaded your home, and killed your family, wouldn't you be full or rage and wanting vengence?

If somebody invaded your country and killed your neighbors?

The difference between many of the people we call "terrorists", and what we would refer to as "patriots", depends on what side you were on. When I'm talking about terrorists here, I'm not talking about the 9-11 sick fucks, I'm talking about the current insurgency.

Our great founding father George Washington, was a terrorist.... If you asked the Brittish. Valley Forge for the Brittish was an American insurgency.

So, do the "terrorists" hate us? Well, damn right. I'm sure they do. What exactly did you expect? You would too, if you were in their place.

If a foreign country invaded my home state, and did what we are doing there, I'd pick up a gun.

Or a bomb.

And I'd fight with any means at my disposal.

And probably, so would you.

So, why is this so damn hard for people to understand?

John

"..we then invade an unrela... (Below threshold)
You'reReallyMichaelMoore,Right?:

"..we then invade an unrelated country, and kill well over a half million more innocients. Women and children. Old men. Non combatents.

Now, to the point...

If killing 3,000 of your people leads you to accept killing 650,000 of their people.."

Are you actually taking those thoroughly discredited numbers seriously? HaHaHa!

"Our great founding father George Washington, was a terrorist.."


"Democrats have offered no ... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"Democrats have offered no positive plan for America and without the assistance of an all too-willing-to-oblige media I believe they would be behind in the polls."

Ummm this is a lie. The Democratic party has offered up plans for every issue I can think of. Several troop withdrawl plans, social security plans, economic plans, health care plans...

What are you referring too? Dead wrong. Again.

You'rereallymichaelmoorerig... (Below threshold)
John:

You'rereallymichaelmooreright,

It's not a discredited number, but pick one you like... 50,000?

Does is really matter how many brown people you kill? You think 50,000 would be enough for them to want to kill you? How many dead people do you want to thow on a pile, before you call it enough?

How many of other people's dead relatives do you want to throw on a pile, thinking you can get away with it?

I don't understand why people don't get this.

If you feed people, their relatives will thank you. If you kill people, their relatives will hate you.


PS: Yes, from the standpoint of a Brittish Loyalist, or the Brittish government (as I said), our great national hero George Washington was a "terrorist" or "insurgent". Had he been caught, he likley would have been hanged for treason.

I got an interesting example when I was in the Dominican Republic a couple years back. Someone told a story about the infamous pirate, Sir Francis Drake. He's a murdering villan there.

I thought that was interesting, since he's a hero here in our culture.

John

Any time you get the moonba... (Below threshold)

Any time you get the moonbat morons worked up, you're doing a good job!

They sure are agitated lately.

Talking about "razor-thin margins," which House district has been at the top of most analysts list as a virtual lock for Democratic takeover? TX-22, the DeLay seat.

But as I link over at Politics, Reuters is now calling it a "toss-up." We don't even have a candidate on the ballot there, it's a write-in campaign. If the #1 dead-bang-lock for a loss is now even, what does it say about the #2, #3, & etc. "sure losses for the GOP?"


~~~~~~~~~~~~


We now return you to the regularly scheduled moronic ranting by lying leftists.

Well, Jim Addison,... (Below threshold)
John:

Well, Jim Addison,

I think what it says is that the Republican agenda is just not that popular with the American people.

Republicans in many races are outspending Democrats by 2 to 1.

Just to keep even...

You'll need to get huge donations from your ultra rich base, and manipulate the religious conservatives.

Just to keep even.

All things being equal, dollar for dollar, the Republican agenda just doesn't sell well with the American People.

John

The Republican agenda is fi... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

The Republican agenda is fine with the American people when they hear what it actually is. The media has told them the tax cuts have wrecked the economy and that there has been no progress in Iraq in three years and that Republicans are all child molesters or child molester protectors, and corrupt and even (gasp!) secretly gay. If all I knew was what I saw on television, like is unfortunately the case with many people, I would probably not want a Republican agenda either. That is why Republicans always have to spend so much more money on ads than the Dems. We don't have a media advertising for us and lying about our opponents for months before each election.

What the dirty little secret is this year though, is that the Dems that are doing so well are the ones running on the GOP agenda. Those carrying the true Dem message like Pelosi and Kerry are no where to be found.

"..we then invade an... (Below threshold)
You'reReallyMichaelMoore,Right?:


"..we then invade an unrelated country, and kill well over a half million more innocients. Women and children. Old men. Non combatents.

Now, to the point...

If killing 3,000 of your people leads you to accept killing 650,000 of their people.."


That number is embarrasingly false, but I'll play along.
Exactly who killed '650,000 women, children, old men, non-combatants'?

You'reReally,Earli... (Below threshold)
John:

You'reReally,

Earlier today you disputed my numbers with great vigor and authority, but only 7-1/2 hours later, now you want me to explain "exactly" what the article said.

I'm here to learn from you, and to teach you.

I don't have time to play with you.

You know (or you should know), that this study is published in the Lancet. Use "The Google" to search the "Internets".

You've eiether missed my point, or you've ignored it.

I think the later.

I think you've done it on purpose, and I think it's because you don't have a point to make.

Finaly, nice name spoof.

John

Funny to watch the moonbats... (Below threshold)

Funny to watch the moonbats squirm.

Whatever happened to their Big Blue Wave?

Is it hidden away with Fitzmas now?

What kind of liar/idiot cites the Lancet surveys? Do you understand how they were done? Are you simply a brainless dolt?

JohnToo scared to ... (Below threshold)
You'reReallyMichaelMoore,Right?:

John

Too scared to answer my question? It's a very simple question, really. Here, I'll repeat it and you can answer it :

Exactly who killed '650,000 women, children, old men, non-combatants'?


Let's get that out of the way, and then we can move on.


Now, as to the rest of what you said:
John:"Earlier today you disputed my numbers with great vigor and authority, "

I, and everyone else not suffering from full-blown Leftism or BDS, know that the Lancet numbers you are citing are pure bullshit. But for the sake of discussion, I'll ignore that fact and continue the conversation. That's what I meant when I said 'That number is embarrasingly false, but I'll play along.' above. It's not that hard to understand, really.


John:"..but only 7-1/2 hours later, now you want me to explain "exactly" what the article said."

Uh, no. I simply want you to tell me who killed the 650,000 you claim died. You don't have to explain what the entire article said. I never asked that. Reading comprehension isn't your strong point, is it?


John:"I'm here to learn from you, and to teach you.

I don't have time to play with you."


Then answer my question or go away.

First, to answer Jim Addiso... (Below threshold)
John:

First, to answer Jim Addison

Yes, I do know how the survey published in the recent Lancet was done. I have sufficient background in statistics and experimental design and analysis to understand the author's methodology.

Finaly, Jim - Your posts tend to throw out alot of personal insults and innuendo but not much information. The person that produced this report was a serious researcher, and his publication was picked up by one of the oldest, and most well respected peer reviewed medical journals.

To answer You'renotreally,

Given that you're spoofing your name, I hardly think you're here to have an honest discussion. You're also calling bullshit on the Lancet article. I'll note that the Lancet article was peer reviewed. And your authority to call bullshit is based on....? Being there? A background in statistics? Science?

To answer your question in non technical terms, the study we're discussing attempted to estimate the number of deaths that normaly would have occured in Iraq during a specific period of time. The study then attempts to estimate the number of deaths that actualy occured during that period of time. The period of time in question is the Iraqi invasion by the US.

The difference in the estimated normal mortality, vs the estimated actual mortality varies between over 400,000 to almost 800,000 with the settled on number as just over 600,000

The author of the study basicaly asserts that 600,000 people died in Iraq that would not have died in Iraq had the invasion and occupation by the US coalition not occured.

But I'm pretty sure you already knew that...

And it's not really relevant to my article above.

John

Debunking The Lancet Estima... (Below threshold)
You'reReallyMichaelMoore,Right?:

Debunking The Lancet Estimate
By Greg Tinti on October 13, 2006 at 04:38 PM

(snip)
...
Anyway, for those liberals that are open-minded to the possibility that the study could be wrong, William Arkin at The Washington Post's Early Warning blog makes the same argument that I made yesterday, but in much greater detail. Here's a taste:

-"This week in the online edition of a British medical journal, the Lancet, researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Baghdad's al-Mustansiriya University estimate that 655,000 more Iraqis died of various causes since the U.S. invasion in March 2003 than would have died in a comparable period were there not a war.

The demographers attributed 601,000 or so of the 655,000 deaths to acts of violence.

This means 15,000 violent deaths a month, 500 violent deaths everyday -- at that sustained level -- for more than three years between March 2003 and June 2006.

Compare this conclusion with a recent U.N. figure, 3,009 Iraqis killed in violence across the country in August, compiled from records of hospitals and morgues countrywide. The U.N. figures conclude a daily rate of about 100 deaths.

The U.N. numbers come from records of deaths; the Hopkins numbers comes from calculations derived from a random sample of 1,849 households in 47 neighborhood clusters across Iraq. In each household, the Iraqi surveyors who did the work asked how many people living in the household were born, died or moved in and out. The surveyors then attempted to verify the reporting through a death certificate (successful, the study author's say, in 90 percent of the cases), and they recorded the cause. The data were then projected onto the population of the entire country, about 26 million people.

The conclusion, based on this sample, is that 91.8 of the deaths were caused by violence. That's the 601,027 number.

Most of these deaths (59 percent), moreover, were reported to have occurred among young men between the ages of 15 and 44, a segment of fighting population that suggests validity.

Gunshots were the most common cause of death, the surveyors found (56 percent). Add in "airstrikes," car bombs, etc., and the number goes even higher.

But back to that U.N. number, 100 deaths a day in August. The Hopkins study suggests that the number of deaths not just this August, but every month since March 2003, is five times larger. Given that the level of violence we are witnessing today is at or near its peak, and given that for periods of time between May 2003 and April 2004, the violence had not yet gotten out of control, in order to get to the Hopkins numbers, one would have to see even significantly higher numbers in recent months than 500 daily deaths to "average" out to 500 deaths overall.

Is it possible that the U.N. is not seeing four out of every five Iraqis who is dying, even today?

It is possible. But it is not likely.

There are two numbers that need to be considered in coming to a conclusion about the Hopkins' study: The raw number of deaths, and the comparison to pre-war deaths, that is, what would have been expected were there not an invasion in 2003.

In the ways of sampling sizes, standard errors, reliability and validity, the John Hopkins team claims being 95 percent certain that their 600,000 number is right. The true number -- the margin of error -- ranges from 400,000 to 900,000 deaths overall.

"To put these numbers in context," one of the study's authors says, "deaths are occurring in Iraq now at a rate more than three times that from before the invasion of March 2003."

The Hopkins team calculated Iraq's mortality rate in the year before the invasion at 5.5 deaths per 1,000 people, comparing it with their post-invasion average of 13.3 deaths per 1,000 people a year. The difference between these two rates is the rate of "excess deaths;" the deaths occurring from violence is how they get to the 600,000 number.

The entire "context" then, hinges on the validity of the pre-war mortality rate. If you accept this number, then I'm told you accept that pre-war Iraq had a better mortality rate than any other country in the Middle East, even Israel.-"

...

Shorter version : Lancet, and John, is full of shit with their politically motivated estimate.

But then you knew that already, John.

BTW, whatever the real</... (Below threshold)
You'reReallyMichaelMoore,Right?:

BTW, whatever the real number is, who is responsible for the killings - us or the terrorists?

I would like to think that you would be rooting for the millions of Iraqis who take the risk of voting and participating in building their own type of democratic government. I would like to think that you are glad Saddam has been overthrown as their dictator.
I would like to think that, but I guess I would be wrong.
Seems John and his ilk were more than happy to let the 'brown people' wallow in dictatorship and the tender mercies of Saddam's rape-rooms.

You'reReally,Well,... (Below threshold)
John:

You'reReally,

Well, we got the ball rollng, and our coalition forces early on were responsable.

We created this situation of civil war through our incompetence. We (and by this, I mean the Bush administration), did not understand the historical and religious landscape, disbanded the Iraqi army, permitted lawlessness in the early days after the invasion, set up a corrupt business environment, failed to secure munitions, lost weapons, sent our soldiers into battle without the proper equipiment, failed to secure the borders, etc...

Yeah, sure I'm happy that they have a chance for democracy. I'm also pretty sure that after years of domestic disturbance and more chaos, that they'll probably elect another strongman dictator, or we'll install another one more to our liking.

Our policies in the Middle East have never really leaned toward democracy, from the Shah of Iran, to supporting Saddam, to our best friends, they Saudi royal family. Regarding the Saudi's, we support an absolute monarchy, that keeps other humans as slaves, because they pledge to support our energy needs.

Democracy is not a gift from us. It's something we give rulers when they fuck up. Saddam got out of line, and we gave him a little democracy smackdown. In reality, the Bush administration could care less about the actual form of government in Iraq, so lonq as it was friendly to US interests. Giving democracy sells well with the American people, otherwise it could be any other form of government we'd care to prop up, as we've done in the past.

Anyway, we set up this crisis. Legaly, in this country if you or I did something similar, we'd be legaly responsible.

So, yeah... If we intend to accept the credit, I guess we should share in the blame. I guess we did it.

John

John:disbanded th... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

John:
disbanded the Iraqi army

What army are you referring to ? Were they all still reporting for duty after Baghdad fell ? You're regurgitating Democrat talking points without engaging your brain.


If a foreign country invaded my home state, and did what we are doing there, I'd pick up a gun.

You're operating from that mindset because you live in a (relatively) free country. If the country you lived in was not free and you weren't a member of the oppressors, you'd most likely have a different mindset... if you engaged your mind.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy