Wednesday, June 30, 2010

A Vote for Kagan Is a Vote to Take Away Your Guns

By John Lott

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan

As the number of President Obama's judicial appointments and nominations continues to grow, it appears pretty clear that he does not care about the individual's right to self-defense. We can tell this by looking at the record of his two Supreme Court picks but also by examining the long list of lower-level judicial appointments. All of these reflect a pattern of favoring person who have written anti-gun opinions.

Elena Kagan, Obama's newest Supreme Court nominee, fits this mold. The Supreme Court has only been very narrowly supportive of an individual's right to bear arms. For example, there was the 5-4 vote in the Heller decision when it struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban in 2008 and a similar 5-4 vote in on Monday in the decision to strike down Chicago’s ban in “McDonald.”

In the future, Kagan’s opinion could be crucial: If Justice Kennedy or one of the four more conservative members of the court were to retire or die, her vote could easily tip the balance on gun rights.

Of course, Obama’s judicial nominations go against his 2008 campaign promises about guns. During the presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama, despite his past support for gun bans, assured voters that he had always supported the Second Amendment as an individual right:

"I have said consistently that I believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right, and that was the essential decision that the Supreme Court came down on."

With those words in mind, alarm bells should have gone off during Elena Kagan’s confirmation testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. Here’s what Kagan told Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa):

It has long been thought, starting from the “Miller” case, that the Second Amendment did not protect such a right. . . . Now the Heller decision has marked a very fundamental moment in the court's jurisprudence with respect to the Second Amendment. And as I suggested to Senator Feinstein there is not question going forward that ‘Heller’ is the law, that it is entitled to all the precedent that any decision is entitled to and that is true to the ‘McDonald’ case as well...

There are two big problems with Kagan’s remarks: she inaccurately describes the 1939 "Miller" case and her claims to follow stare decisis are meaningless.

The "Miller" decision said that the Second Amendment protected civilian use of firearms that are used in the military and that a sawed off shotgun wasn't a military weapon. But the court went no farther in explaining the right. There was no discussion of the modern liberal view of a “collective right.” The very short opinion didn’t say if there was an individual right to own military weapons. The issues were never addressed.

However, Kagan’s argument is precisely what Justice Stevens wrote about when he and the other liberal Supreme Court justices opposed “Heller.” They claimed that Miller was the real precedent and that there was no individual right to own a gun. Stevens asserted that “Heller” and “McDonald” were the real aberrations from court precedent.

Kagan’s statement surely shows that she also believes the “Heller” decision broke with past precedent. Saying that “Heller” and “McDonald” are “entitled to all the precedent that any decision is entitled to” also means that her strained interpretation of Miller is entitled to the same precedent.

Obama's first Supreme Court pick, Sonia Sotomayor, looked no better. For instance, in one of her decisions as an appeals court judge, she argued that the Second Amendment would not block any gun-control laws as long as the politicians passing the laws thought the weapon was "designed primarily as a weapon and has no purpose other than to maim or, in some instances, kill."

In other words, as long as politicians think that they are doing the right thing, even if totally misguided, these good intentions trump any individual right to bear arms.

With an interpretation like the one offered by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court would never have struck down Washington, D.C.’s gun ban, let alone any other gun-control law.

Unfortunately, there is no easy quick-fix: every place in the world that has tried a gun ban -- not just Chicago and Washington, D.C. -- has seen an increase in murder rates.

But despite her past decisions, Sotomayor clearly promised the Senate Judiciary Committee that as a Supreme Court justice she would follow Heller and accept its decision that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own guns for self-defense. Here's this example from her 2009 confirmation hearing:

Senator Patrick Leahy: “. . . you, in fact, recognized the Supreme Court decided in ‘Heller’ that the personal right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution against federal law restrictions. Is that correct?

Sotomayor: It is.

Yet, in the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday to strike down the Chicago handgun ban, Sotomayor apparently completely forgot her promise last year. She completely signed on to Justice Breyer's claim:

I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as 'fundamental' insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes.

Breyer’s dissent provides a clear warning: the Supreme Court is just one vote away from totally reversing “Heller” and “McDonald” and declaring that the government can completely ban gun ownership.

With Kagan on the Supreme Court, there will continue to be four (out of nine justices) who support the government’s decision to completely ban gun ownership.

No Senator can seriously claim that he strongly supports gun ownership and still vote for Kagan’s confirmation.

John R. Lott, Jr. is the author of "More Guns, Less Crime."(University of Chicago Press, 2010), the third edition of which was published in May."

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Joe Biden- King of Gaffes

You gotta love Joe Biden. He has the balls to walk into someone’s place of business - uninvited - and refer to the product the business sells by the wrong name, eat the product that the business sells, and when the owner of the business says he doesn’t have to pay for what he ate - just kiddingly says if Biden lowers his taxes he’ll call it even - Biden insults him. 

What were people thinking when they elected this clown? Along with his running mate, who hadn’t any executive experience and is now way over his head politically, we have Biden - who is so removed from Middle America that he hasn’t the common sense of a Billy-Goat. The guy who owns this business was so surprised and shocked, that he didn’t know what to say to Biden. 

I have to tell ya - not taking anything away from this store owner - but where I come from, if it had been my business Biden walked into and had insulted me, I would have responded by telling him to un-ass the premises, post haste. But hey, that’s me.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

In Debate Over Gun-Carry Laws, Critics Are Quick to Shoot Down the Facts

By John R. Lott Jr

People walking the streets armed with guns must be dangerous, right? A newly revised study by the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center found that even those individuals who have legally obtained permits to carry concealed handguns are extremely dangerous. With millions of Americans already having been issued such permits from the various states, this is an important issue.

The gun control organizations have frequently made these claims in the press, and Dennis Henigan, the vice president of the Brady Campaign, will likely make these claims again when he and I appear on John Stossel’s FoxBusiness show today. But the gun control advocates inaccurately describe many shooting cases, choosing to ignore that the majority of incidents involve people properly defending themselves.

Over the past three years, the number of active permit holders in the United States has gone from about 5 million to more than 6.2 million today. The numbers issued by the state regulatory agencies show time after time that these permit holders abide by the law.

Take Florid, which currently has the most concealed handgun permit holders in the country and is one of the two most populous states with right-to-carry laws. Between Oct. 1, 1987, and May 31 this year, permits had been issued to 1.8 million people. On average, the permits had been held for quite a long time, well over 10 years. For all those individuals across the more than 22 years of legal carry, there were only 167 cases where the permit was revoked for a firearms related violation, or about 0.01 percent of permit holders. While the state doesn't provide a precise breakdown of the reason for those revocations, the vast majority were apparently for people who accidentally carried their concealed handgun into a gun-free zone, such as an airport or school.

Throughout the past 29 months, beginning January 2008, only three additional permit holders have had their permit revoked for a firearms-related violation. With more than 729,000 active permit holders, that is an annual revocation rate of 0.00017 percent.

In sharp contrast, the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center portray Florida as Ground Zero for problems with concealed handgun permit holders. They boldly assert that 17 Florida permit holders have "killed" people with their guns over the past three years and that this one state by itself accounts for 17 of the 96 "killer" permit holders nationwide. The other 79 cases are scattered across 26 other states, with no other state accounting for more than 10 cases. Florida is also said to account for 2 of the 7 cases where permit holders are said to have killed law enforcement officers.

The Associated Press articles by Erik Schelzig and by Jim Abrams have given extensive, uncritical coverage to these claims. Members of the gun control organizations have made these claims unchallenged on such places as Fox News and on the Huffington Post.
So what is the evidence? The gun control groups don't actually point to actual court cases. They look at news stories and selectively report what is reported in those stories. For Florida, there are eleven "pending cases." The gun control groups assume that anyone involved in a shooting will be convicted. Indeed, in 7 of the 11 cases no one was even charged with a crime. Three cases involved suicides, and three had convictions for some type of offense.

But there is something that the gun control advocates conveniently omit: When a permit holder uses a gun defensively and kills an attacker in a public place, the police often arrest them. Typically, he will later be released, but the police must first investigate what happened. The police can’t just take the shooter's word for it that they used the gun defensively.

Take the four pending cases where charges were filed, two of which involved the "killing" of law enforcement.

-- Humberto Delgado, Jr. was charged with the death of a police officer. Delgado obviously engaged in a horrible crime, but there is one major problem with the stories as presented by the gun control groups. He also was charged with carrying a concealed firearm. If he had a concealed handgun permit, he obviously couldn't have been charged with this crime. Delgado was just your typical criminal, who didn't have a permit, who killed a police officer.

-- James Wonder was charged with the death of an off-duty Customs and Border Protection Agent Donald Pettit. Pettit is said to have engaged in road rage against Wonder and then followed Wonder's car into a Post Office parking lot solely to continue harassing Wonder. Pettit had over shot the parking lot and had to circle back to go into it. He had no intention to do business with either the Post Office or any other nearby business. Pettit was clearly the aggressor in the situation. The Sun-Sentinel newspaper wrote on August 29, 2008: "local lawyers said [Wonder] may be able to make a strong claim under Florida law that he was within his rights to shoot Pettit." One measure of the severity of the case is that Wonder was released on a very minimal bond of $10,000. Neither the Brady Campaign nor the Violence Policy Center noted these points in their discussion of the case.

-- Gabriel Mobley shot two people outside a bar, and the gun control groups’ discussions fail to mention the defensive nature of Mobley's actions. A friend of Mobley's had an argument with two other men in a bar. Mr. Mobley separated the men, but the two waited outside and Mobley's lawyer, Richard Della Ferra, told me that they pounced on Mobley and his friend as soon as they left the bar. Witnesses saw one of the two attackers throw a punch that shattered the friend's eye socket. Mobley says that he shot when he thought one of the two men was reaching for a weapon, and police found the DNA of one of the men on a steak knife at the scene.

-- On January 7, 2008, Adam Hill was accused of accidentally firing his gun, the bullet fatally striking a friend while the friend had visited Hill to use his washing machine. Since the case has yet to go to trial, the law office that is representing Hill was unwilling to discuss the case, but they did say that the news articles did not accurately represent what had happened in the case. The law office representing Hill in his legal case emphasized to me in a telephone discussion that news articles on these cases can be quite misleading because defense lawyers warn their clients not to talk to others about their case, including the press.

Two of the three convictions in Florida are quite different than what gun control groups represent. One involved a boyfriend who accidentally shot his girlfriend when he was showing her how to use a gun in her home. There was no evidence of arguing or any disagreement. In another case, the issue was whether the permit holder had done enough to avoid the confrontation. A convicted felon confronted the permit holder. According to newspaper accounts, even the prosecutor acknowledged: “Kallenbach was in some way defending himself during an escalating altercation between the men caught on the security video” and that "People can look at that tape and interpret it two or three different ways.”

While this discussion focuses on Florida, the just released third edition of  More Guns, Less Crime provides a detailed analysis for all states from 1990 to July 1, 2008. In state after state, permit holders are extremely law-abiding. In Arizona, there were 99,370 active permits as of December 1, 2007. During 2007, 33 permits were revoked for any reason -- a 0.03 percent rate. In Texas, there were 288,909 active permit holders. Of these, 160 were convicted of either a misdemeanor or a felony, a rate of 0.05 percent. That is about one-seventh the conviction rate in the general adult population, and the convictions among permit holders are for much less serious offenses.

I went to some other cases from the gun control groups after July 1, 2008. In two of the other five killings involving law-enforcement, it also appears as if the person who fired a gun didn't have a concealed handgun permit. In one case, in Pennsylvania, Christina Korbe fired a shot killing a police officer when police raided her home. The police were serving an arrest warrant on her husband, and she didn't know it was the police who were breaking into her home, and she was concerned about the safety of her two children, ages 4 and 10.

The Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center evaluate the benefits of concealed handgun laws based solely on the claimed costs -- they don't compare the cases where defensive uses occurred to the bad things that happen, but only count what they claim are the bad cases. They ignore lots of amazing defensive gun use cases. But even more bizarrely, they count legitimate self-defense cases as bad events even when no charges are filed or the permit holder is later exonerated.

John R. Lott Jr. is an economist and author of  More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, May 2010)

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

We Need a Chief Executive, Not a Community Organizer.

It is becoming patently obvious that the military is growing weary of dealing with the bumbling clowns in the Obama administration, witnessed by the fact that General McChrystal has joined the list of senior military persons to openly criticize Obama and his band of misfits.

The friction between the military leadership and the Obama administration began almost immediately after the president took office and has grown as the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated.

Military commanders have said privately that the White House didn't understand war; White House officials said the military didn't understand political realities.

Political leaders have intimated for months that the Pentagon has engaged in leaks and backroom insubordination. Military leaders have charged that the Obama administration is committed to getting out of Afghanistan, not winning.

Where the military has called for leaving behind a stable Afghanistan, civilian leaders have said they want only to “disrupt, defeat and dismantle” al Qaida.

General McChrystal has a history of making candid statements that has drawn the ire of the administration. Most notably, during a speech in London last fall, McChrystal, 55, publicly refused to embrace calls by Biden to scale down U.S. goals from creating a stable state and eliminating the Taliban threat to only defeating al Qaida.

He called Biden's approach "shortsighted"; Obama brought him onto Air Force I and chastised him for the comments afterward.

It’s clear Biden rates lower than whale dung on any list McChrystal or his aides may have him on. During the Afghan war strategy review, Vice President Biden was on the other side of the fence from McChrystal, advocating a stripped-down counterterrorism approach while McChrystal pushed for boots on the ground.

The lingering friction was apparent in the Rolling Stone article. It depicted McChrystal and his aides imagining how the General would answer press questions about Biden's involvement.

"Are you asking about Vice President Biden? Who's that?" McChrystal said, laughing.

An adviser chimed in: "Biden? Did you say: Bite Me?"

If anyone doubts that the military has severe reservations about dealing with an administration who has no practical experience in making executive decisions, who can’t even deal effectively with a civilian crisis, like the oil spill, let alone a crisis dealing with waging war where American lives are at stake, then this latest scenario with McChrystal should serve as a awake up call.

This is what you get when you elect a band of “community organizers” fresh from the cesspool of the Chicago political machine, who have no experience in the capacity of a chief executive and who have little idea how to effectively govern a nation.

What Obama should do is reprimand General McChrystal - because he is the Commander in Chief, and McChrystal was insubordinate - but he should send him back to Afghanistan with orders to win the war. However, I doubt seriously that Obama will do this for two reasons. One, he responds almost petulantly to any criticism and I just don’t see him letting McChrystal off the hook, and two, I don’t believe Obama really wants to win the war in Afghanistan but simply wants to pull out on his already stipulated timetable.

The bottom line however is that Afghan officials said Wednesday that firing Gen. Stanley McChrystal would disrupt progress in the war and could jeopardize a pivotal security operation under way in Taliban strongholds in the south. The flap over McChrystal comes as NATO and Afghan forces are ramping up security in and around the key southern city of Kandahar, the birthplace of the Taliban.

If Obama makes the mistake of replacing McChrystal at this important juncture, the major offensive that McChrystal himself planned will be in serious jeopardy and, in fact, could ultimately mean a loss in the war in Afghanistan. And all because of an article in Rolling Stone magazine… just another debacle that is Obama’s presidency.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

It's Official: U.S. Warns It Can't Guard Part of Mexican Border

About 3,500 acres of southern Arizona have been closed off to U.S. citizens due to increased violence at the U.S.-Mexico border, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The closed off area includes part of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge that stretches along the U.S.-Mexico border. Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu told Fox News that violence against law enforcement officers and U.S. citizens has increased in the past four months, forcing officers on an 80 mile stretch of Arizona land north of the Mexico border off-limits to Americans.

The refuge had been adversely affected by the increase in drug smugglers, illegal activity and surveillance, which made it dangerous for Americans to visit.

"The situation in this zone has reached a point where continued public use of the area is not prudent," said refuge manager Mitch Ellis.

“It’s literally out of control,” said Babeu. “We stood with Senator McCain and literally demanded support for 3,000 soldiers to be deployed to Arizona to get this under control and finally secure our border with Mexico. “

U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials have warned visitors in Arizona to beware of heavily armed drug smugglers and human traffickers.

“We need support from the federal government. It’s their job to secure the border and they haven’t done it,” said Babeu. “In fact, President Obama suspended the construction of the fence and it’s just simply outrageous.”

Signs have been posted warning Americans not to cross into the closed off territory south of Interstate 8. Babeu said the signs are not enough – he said Arizona needs more resources to help scale back the violence caused by the drug cartels.

“We need action. It’s shameful that we, as the most powerful nation on Earth, … can’t even secure our own border and protect our own families.”

Monday, June 14, 2010

Obama At The Bat

Viewers may better understand this clip if you knew the original poem upon which this is based - "Casey at the Bat" by Ernest Thayer - often considered one of baseball's greatest writings.

Sunday, June 13, 2010

The Other Side of Jihad -- Honor Killings

By Phyllis Chesler

We usually associate jihadic warriors with fiery, anti-American and anti-Israeli sermons and with homicide bombings and airplane hijackings. We don’t think of jihadists as homebodies or in terms of their family relationships.

But we should.

Islamic fundamentalism (Islamism) is associated both with terrorism—and with Islamic gender apartheid. Thus, Islamists demand that their women shroud themselves, marry their first cousins, serve their brothers and father as domestic servants, keep quiet about routine daughter--and wife--battering, and keep away from infidel influences.

If they don't, they risk being honor murdered.

Not all Muslims are Islamists. Many are anti-Islamists, dissidents, moderates, secular, or apostates. I know, because I work with such people.

But, show me a jihadist and I’ll show you someone who believes in polygamy, demands that his women wear the Islamic veil, keep away from “foreigners,” and remain totally obedient and subordinate to him. If not, their lives are in danger. And they are warned about this repeatedly.

Not all honor killers actually hijack airplanes—but they probably support those who do.

Incredibly, young immigrant girls or first generation citizens are being murdered by their own families in honor killings in the West. In order to prevent such murders, it is important to understand that honor killings differ significantly from western-style domestic violence. However, when an honor killing occurs here, the police, as well as Islamist and feminist groups, still insist that the murder is just like domestic violence everywhere.

 But that is not true.

- In 1989 in St. Louis, 16-year-old Palestina Isa was murdered by her father and mother because they saw her as “too American” and because she was friendly with an African-American boy.

- In 2000, 25-year-old Jaswinder Kaur was murdered by her mother and uncle because she had married someone deemed inappropriate by her wealthy Sikh family.

- In 2007 in Ottawa, Canada, 16-year-old Aqsa Parvez was murdered by her father and brother because she refused to wear the Islamic veil.

- In 2008, in Dallas, teenage sisters Sarah and Amina Said were lured by their mother and murdered by their father who was outraged by their “Western” ways.

- In 2009, in Peoria, Arizona, 20- year-old Noor Al-Maleki was murdered by her father (with support from her mother and brother). Faleh ran over his daughter with a two-ton jeep. Noor’s family felt dishonored by her flight from an arranged marriage and by her sexually liberated American lifestyle, which included wearing tight jeans and makeup.

Western fathers and mothers do not routinely murder their young daughters or for such reasons.

According to my new study in Middle East Quarterly, such classic killings have accelerated significantly over the last twenty years. The study examined the fate of 230 victims on five continents. I found that Muslims committed 96% of these murders in Europe, 84% in North America, and 91% worldwide. Sikhs and Hindus committed the rest. There may be a more significant Hindu involvement in honor killings where caste has been violated but such killings take place mainly in India, and not in the West.

My study also documents that two types of honor killings and/or two distinct victim populations exist. One group’s average age is seventeen; the other group’s average age is thirty-six. Both groups are murdered because they are seen as “too Western,” “too independent,” or because they have engaged in a “sexual impropriety”—even if only an imagined one.

Thus, immigrant girls and women are at special risk in the West. Those who exercised their option to assimilate were killed in particularly gruesome ways.

In Europe, 68% of such killings were torturous, agonizing. Girls and women were stabbed 20-40 times, raped and set on fire, bludgeoned to death, beheaded, beaten, stoned. These women were tempted by Western freedoms. They did not want to wear religious clothing, they wanted to go to school, have careers, wear western clothing, have non-Muslim friends, and marry for love.

Such murders may be intended as an object lesson for other female immigrants who are expected to lead subordinated and segregated lives amid the temptations and privileges of freedom.

The level of primal, sadistic, or barbaric savagery shown in honor killings often approximates the murders in the West perpetrated by serial killers against prostitutes or randomly selected women.

This suggests that gender separatism, the devaluation of girls and women, normalized child abuse—as practiced in an era of Islamism and jihadism, may lead to femicidal levels of aggression towards girls and women.

This culture of honor killings may reflect or even create a climate in which barbaric jihad seems normal, even desirable.

Honor-related violence, including honor killings cannot be justified in the name of cultural relativism, religious tolerance, anti-racism, diversity, or political correctness. These acts are human rights violations and crimes.

As long as Islamist groups continue to deny, minimize, or obfuscate the problem, and government and police officials accept their inaccurate versions of reality, women will continue to be killed for honor in the West.

Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D. is emerita professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies. She may be reached at her website

Thursday, June 3, 2010

Illegal Alien Legal Challenge

By John Lott

Little noticed, last Friday the Obama administration yet again tried to make it easier for illegal aliens to stay in the United States. In a brief filed with the Supreme Court, the administration asked the court to carve out a special exemption for businesses who break the law by hiring illegal aliens.

In every state, individuals must have a business license to do a huge range of jobs, be it a restaurant, stores, salvage, selling cars, cleaning people's houses, pest control, or other businesses. But people must get a criminal background check to get a license. Different states vary in terms of what crimes can disqualify one from getting a license -- some including misdemeanors not covered in other states.

Similarly, if you commit a crime, your business license is very likely to be revoked. The same is true for professional licenses for lawyers, doctors, or even barbers. The logic for these rules is pretty strong. If someone commits a crime, states have decided those people can't be trusted in dealing with consumers.

Both state and federal crimes are included in these criminal background checks, and it has always been up to the states to determine what crimes will bar people from being licensed. This is what the Obama administration now wants to change. The Obama administration wants crimes involving immigration violations specifically excluded from their licensing decisions.

When Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano was Arizona's governor back in 2007, she signed a law that added hiring illegal aliens to the list of crimes for which a business license could be revoked. Napolitano didn't think that there were any legal problems with the law, and even defended it in court. Indeed, even the Ninth Circuit Federal Appeals Court -- known for its left wing views -- rejected challenges by illegal alien rights groups.

But the Obama administration has tried to rationalize its challenge to the Arizona law.

"Those provisions disrupt a careful balance that Congress struck nearly 25 years ago between two interests of the highest importance: ensuring that employers do not undermine enforcement of immigration laws by hiring unauthorized workers, while also ensuring that employers not discriminate against racial and ethnic minorities legally in the country," Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal wrote the Supreme Court. "There is no reason to believe that Congress intended a result that would subvert the purpose and operation of its general prohibition on state sanctions."

As states have always had the power to determine how criminal activity can cost people their business licenses, why didn't the original Federal immigration law ban immigration law violations being considered?

But instead of guessing whether Congress "intended" such a result in 1986, there is a simple solution: Have Congress pass a law stating that immigration violations are the one crime that states must not consider for licensing. With massive overwhelming Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate, Democrats can do virtually anything that they want.

Part of the Obama administration's motivation for this Supreme Court appeal is to create a legal precedent that only the Federal government can deal with immigration issues. They aim to use such a precedent to strike down the new Arizona immigration law that was just signed this year that allows local and state police to enforce Federal immigration law.

Asking courts to rewrite laws doesn't show much respect for the rule of law. But maybe, despite massive Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate, the Obama administration knows that it doesn't have the votes to pass such radical reform.

John R. Lott, Jr. is an economist and author of More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, May 2010).

Free Hit Counter

Copyright © 2009 - 2012 The Audacity of Logic