Knowledge Seeker
  • Home
  • Articles

U.S. Withdrawal

10/31/2019

 
You've probably heard the name Kurds mentioned quite a lot over the years and especially now as Democrats and the mainstream media attempt to make it appear that we've abandoned them, an Ally, with Trump pulling out troops in Syria. To be fair there are some Republicans as well who have concerns about a withdrawal, but we're not getting the full story because everything is now about politics so there's no desire or time, to cover all angles. In order to get a fuller picture and come up with your own knowledgeable conclusions, I've provided some context below.  

First of all, the Kurdish people don't have their own country instead they have a territory that "some," of them live in and it's a terrible location as they're surrounded by Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. Those that aren't specifically in their region are a minority group in all of these countries which is a bad position to be in as they have no political clout. Plus, pretty much every country would like to push them out of where they're primarily located (Kurdish Territory), because it would give them additional land to set up missiles and place troops in their ongoing fight against each other. This is one of the reasons the Kurds are often fighting as they're constantly trying to protect their land. This is why their known as such good fighters because for many of them, it's all they've ever known.  

Kurds comprise around 19% of Turkey's population, 18% of Iraq's population, 20% of Iran's population, and 9% of Syria's population. They are imbedded among people from these countries with very few of them being part of the Kurdish army. It wouldn't make sense for them to be; it would be like Mexican Hispanics living in the U.S. being part of the Mexican army. So the fact is, we're not letting down all the Kurds. Most of them have no desire to go back to the Kurdish territory as it's much less civilized than where they are now.

But there are some soldiers who try to protect their territory and whomever is creating the most problems for them at the time, in this case Syria, gets their military attention.  Turkey has also been fighting against Syria (nothing new), so the Kurds are helping them out because they have a common enemy. The problem being that around 9% of Syria's population are Kurdish so they were facing genocide by Syria's president Asaad.

We had around three primary goals in reference to using U.S. troops in Syria and that was to get closer to the Syrian rebels who would have better intel on ISIS  and to stop Asaad from human rights violations and destabilizing the region by land/oil grabbing. Where were other countries in helping the Kurds and Syrian rebels? Once again the U.S. goes in to help other people yet we end up being demonized. This is part of what President Trump is talking about. We continue to risk American lives and we not only don't get credit for our help, we get attacked in one way or another for either getting involved or not getting involved. It's a no-win situation.

Lastly, we wanted Russia to know that we weren't going to let them use their forces to kill Syrian rebels like President Obama did. We weren't going to allow Russia to force a no fly zone like he doing under President Obama. Sending troops was a message about Russian's overt support for Asaad and that we would up our military involvement if they continued their offensive. It worked. Russia and Syria both backed down their aggressiveness. If it heats up again, we can make the decision whether to get engaged again.   

With all of the above in mind, let's take a look at some truths Democrats and the mainstream media are leaving out of their attacks on President Trump:

1) We only had 2,500 troops in Syria to begin with, it's not like we were in a full-scale war and are pulling back major assistance to the Kurds and Turkey. If something happens and it's in our country's best interests to reengage,  we could have thousands of troops there within a couple of days.

2) Most Democrats didn't want us in Syria to begin with, this is why Obama did absolutely nothing there and allowed Russia to get a foothold, yet now they're all concerned about pulling back U.S. troops. The mainstream media ran articles about why the U.S. shouldn't get involved in another Syrian conflict yet now they're attacking Trump for doing the very thing they wanted and that is to pull out our military. I find this disgustingly unethical.

3) Trump's foreign policy isn't crazy and it hasn't changed. Before he even thought about running for office his stance was to only risk American lives if there were clear gains for American citizens. Strangely enough, Democrats tried to paint him as a war monger during the 2016 election when his ideology was clearly just the opposite. They have no problem telling blatant lies for political gain. They don't even worry about getting caught. All anyone must do is go to YouTube and it's very clear what Trump thinks about when deciding if it's worth engaging U.S. troops, but I guess some members of the Democratic Party don't want to know the truth, they just want to attack Trump.

We have a lot of people saying if Trump pulls our troops out, no one will trust us anymore. The fact is, we can't stay in there forever. There will always be conflicts in that region, it's been going on for thousands of years. So in order for other countries to trust us we need to establish a permanent presence? We could pull out five years from now and the same argument would be made that we weren't trustworthy. It's insane.

We accomplished mostly what we wanted and if Asaad tries to attack other countries and it's in our best interest to jump in, then we'll do it. The only countries that should count on our full support are those who have promised the same to us which includes countries like Britain, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Poland, and Spain. No Muslim country or territory has signed their support as an official Ally of the U.S. Why should we give our full and unending support to countries who don't reciprocate and when we don't have a cause that is worth risking American lives and U.S. dollars to support?

It's easy for these politicians to play politics with other peoples' lives. They literally have no skin in the game. And for a political party to have been so hands-off in reference to military involvement during the Obama Administration to be so pro-military involvement now, shows a terrible lack of integrity. They should be embarrassed but they're not.

Should we be in Syria? Should we pull out now? Will it cause more harm than good? The problem is that none of us know for sure because we don't get an opportunity to see the full picture. Some  of it for reasons of national security and some of it because the role politics has taken in filtering facts. We no longer get the pure who, what, when, where, and why of stories as it goes through political spin before ever reaching our eyes and ears.

So the fact is, if we Democrats and Republicans argue amongst ourselves about who is right or wrong about this situation, and many others for that matter, we are quite frankly doing exactly what our political parties want us to be doing. Is Trump's Administration doing the right thing in reference to Syria, I don't know. What I do know is there isn't any decision he could make that would be irreversible. We aren't stuck with any choice.  The Middle-East has been a hornets nest as long as I can remember so an easy solution nor consensus will ever exists.  

Is The Washington Post in Trouble?

10/29/2019

 
A federal judge made a ruling and is going to allow the Covington High School student (Nicholas Sandmann), to sue The Washington Post, for their "alleged," attempt of defamation of character for political and financial gain. Previously he and his attorney were told they couldn't sue but now it has been officially cleared.


What the WAPO did was so disgusting and I hope they pay dearly. They weren't the only media outlet to attack students of Covington High School even though there was video evidence that they didn't do anything wrong and were instead provoked and still kept their cool. The liberal media cut out sections of the video that negated their narrative.


I find what the media did to these young people horrific but it's not the only thing they did regarding the video. The video had footage of African Americans taunting the students and yelling vicious racial slurs which included threats of physical harm. If the roles were reversed and they had a video of whites doing the same thing, it would've been covered by the mainstream media 24/7. They buried this huge story for political reasons. This is just one of thousands of reasons why the media is no longer credible.

Margaret Brainard Hamilton (1902 - 1985)

10/28/2019

 
Margaret Brainard Hamilton played the Wicked Witch in "The Wizard of Oz." Her character is ranked as the 4th greatest villain in U.S. movies. Contrary to the role she played she was an extremely sweet person who was always giving back to her community with a special fondness for children and animals. She attended college and became a fourth-grade teacher. During her acting career she not only served on Beverly Hill's Board of Education, but she also taught Sunday School. 

Although her role as the Wicked Witch defined her, she already had a good career in film having been in movies such as: "You Only Live Once," "Nothing Sacred," "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer," and "My Little Chickadee," with W.C. Fields. She never tied herself to one movie studio and was paid a flat rate of what would be in today's dollars $15,000 a week.

She was married once and got a divorce in 1938. They had one son. What I find so amazing about Hamilton is that she wasn't a Hollywood beauty but found her own niche as a New England Spinster. Her tough image on film just goes to show how great an actress she was because those who knew her saw her as a kind, grade school teacher.  

More Double-Standards in The Media

10/27/2019

 
I'm sure you've heard that ISIS leader Al-Baghdadi was killed during a raid by U.S. Special Forces. In usual fashion, such as when Osama Bin Laden used his wife as a shield before he was shot and killed, Al-Baghdadi took three children with him when he ran and then decided to detonate a suicide vest before he was captured. He was a coward.

I've noticed as I've flipped around between news networks, that there are double-standards in play in their coverage. Nothing unusual of course, as that's how they roll. Democrats and the mainstream media immediately gave President Obama dramatic praise for taking out Bin Laden, but this time, it's not the President's success, it's the military's. I do believe that most of the credit should go to all those involved in the operation from planning to execution but it's the fact that Obama got credit and Trump isn't, that bothers me. Double-standards are a major pet peeve for me.

Instead of focusing on the huge win for the U.S. in taking out someone who has brutally murdered many of our citizens (including beheadings), their coverage was about Trump's press conference and that he didn't tell leaders in the Democratic Party what they were going to do. How could he? The leaks have been terrible and the last thing the Democrats would want is for there to be a successful mission.  It is the potential leaks that allows a President to decide who is in the loop during special military operations. He did nothing un-Constitutional although Democrats and the media are attempting to paint this picture.

Leaks are a greater concern now than ever before. It's no longer country first, it's politics first. What's truly best for our country is now on the backburner in a constant power grab by both parties. Democrats and the mainstream media want Trump taken down and they want big wins in 2020; it's a very clear objective. 

The media said little about the great victory but spent their time attacking Trump for what he said and how he said it during the press conference.  The thing about being fake news is that it's not only what you cover and how you cover it, but also what you don't cover. They didn't want President Trump to have a moment so they did everything in their power to take it away from the actual story of what was accomplished and focused instead on his personal characteristics. They have no integrity. 

Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662)

10/26/2019

 
Blaise Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, religious philosopher, and master of prose. When I took Philosophy in college, the professor could only scratch the surface because the world throughout history is filled with greats such as Plato and Socrates. Pascal intrigued me in many ways and one is how he defined things such as desires and happiness. All those years ago and what he said is still so applicable to today and why it's still an important subject to be taught in schools. Although this won't be a perfect description of what I learned, you'll get the point:

Our brains light up when we daydream or fantasize about things we want but once we've acquired them, we don't want them anymore. It ceases to exist as a fantasy, thus the joy is gone. It wouldn't be as much of a problem if we were good at counting our blessings and getting joy from what we've acquired, but that's not how most human beings live their lives; we take things for granted. We become desensitized to the objects of our desires once we've acquired them. 

Desire must have its objects as perpetually absent. He said its not the "it," that creates more happiness for people in their lives, it’s the fantasy of “it.” This is why some people with less means actually live happier lives; they have more to wish for. Pascal said in so many words, when we're told be careful what we wish for, it’s not because we might be wishing for the wrong things or that we might be disappointed that we don’t get them, but because we’re doomed not to want it once we do.    



​


The Tragedy of the Kursk

10/25/2019

 
This is both an amazing story and a very sad one. A tragic event happened to a Russian attack submarine named: Kursk in 2000. The sub carried 118 sailors and it was the pride of the Russian Navy as it was one of the most dangerous subs in the world. It was larger than most submarines (close to two football fields in length). It could go deeper and faster than most subs (over a thousand feet deep and over 30 knots). Lastly, it was extremely quiet so it could more easily avoid detection.
 
The Russian fleet was heading out to a location on the Bering Sea where they could perform exercises which included launching torpedoes and non-weaponized missiles. It had been ten years since they performed such an exercise as the Soviet Union was in terrible economic shape because of the Cold War. Truly, no one but President Reagan could've pulled this off. They scrapped their ships and submarines for metal and were down to about 30% their original strength. At the time of this tragedy, Boris Yeltsin had been president for four months and his goal was to turn things around and get Soviet pride back.
 
When their navy arrived at the training location, a huge explosion occurred in the Kursk’s torpedo room. A later investigation showed the torpedoes were defective and could easily explode due to overheating. The explosion was so loud that it pegged a 4.2 on the Richter Scale and was heard by a sonar in Alaska. Pretty much all major countries knew that Russia had just lost a ship or a submarine with a huge arsenal so they went to work on finding out which one. Figuring out if a nuclear power plant or nuclear weapons were involved was critical to many countries especially those in NATO. 
 
After the explosion, Russia went into a search mode. They dropped a small submersible in the water that had a camera and eventually they found the wreckage around 350 feet down. It was a horrific site as almost all the submarine had been blown apart except for the back part of the sub.
 
They didn’t think anyone could've possibly survived but following protocol, they had a few ships stay over the area where the submarine went down and listen for sounds. When a submarine went down, the crew knew they were supposed to use what they could, to bang on the walls of the submarine at the top of every hour. The men on the ships above were shocked when they heard the banging. They didn’t know how many sailors had survived the explosion, but they knew that at least one had and it caused a great deal of excitement. President Yeltsin was immediately notified and was told that they had it under control.
 
At this point, they sent for a Soviet rescue ship that was in port. It had a small submarine that could attach itself to the sub’s escape hatch and allow the sailors to leave their vessel and climb on board the rescue sub. The Soviet Union had three of these rescue ships at one point, but they began running out of money and sold two of them. The surprising thing is that they sold one of them to a U.S. company who used it to take customers down to see the Titanic. These people paid a minimum of $25,000 for the adventure. At first the ticket prices were around $60,000. 
 
When Russia attempted to dock the rescue vessel to the Kursk, it didn’t work. They tried several times, but it was running out of battery power, so they had to resurface. They asked to swap out batteries then found there wasn’t a back-up. It was sold along with the rescue ship and sub to the businessman taking people to see the Titanic. Without a backup battery, they had to wait 12 hours before their current battery could be recharged. Frustration was mounting as they knew they were running out of time because at the very least, oxygen would diminish.
 
They spent around four days going back and forth to the sub to try and rescue the men, but each time they couldn’t get the connection they needed and would have to resurface and then wait another 12 hours for the battery to recharge. At this point even President Yeltsin was getting upset with his navy. It was later determined that the rubber seal on the rescue vessel was faulty. It hadn’t been inspected in years, so no one caught the problem.
 
Russia had several offers to help rescue their sailors, even from the U.S., but they refused their help. One of Russia’s admirals happened to have a friend who was the Commodore of the Royal Navy and although he was risking his career to ask for help, he did. Britain immediately sent their rescue ship, which was much better equipped for a rescue, but when they arrived at the scene, they were told to stay away from the Kursk. The Commodore had personally joined the rescue attempt and he was extremely upset that they had to just sit back and watch these sailors die.  
 
Pretty much everyone in Russia’s navy were livid that their sailors weren’t being rescued.  Families of the crew members were demanding answers especially since they began hearing that other countries were willing to help.
 
While all of this was happening, the Communist Party began making various claims such as their rescue capabilities were far greater than other countries, so they didn’t need any help, which wasn’t the only lie they told. They said that it was just an accident and that the sub had run into another ship. This was a blatant and ridiculous lie because pretty much the whole world at this point, knew there was a massive explosion. I remember hearing about it on the news.
 
Russia didn’t want to admit that either their weapons malfunctioned, or their nuclear reactor did because it would make them appear weak. They knew that if they allowed another country to help, such as Britain,  that they’d see the wreckage and know it wasn’t just an accidental collision and since they had put that word out that it was, it would be embarrassing to get caught in a lie.  
 
With mounting pressure at home and around the globe, Russia finally gave in after five days and solicited help from Britain and Norway. It was too late. When they opened the escape hatch, they found 23 sailors dead. One of the sailors had a note in his pocket with the names of all the men who survived the explosion. Could you imagine finding out that one of your loved ones could’ve been saved? Many of the other men had written notes to their families and put them in their pockets hoping the water wouldn’t ruin their writings. Some of the notes did survive.  One note came from a sailor whose wife was getting ready to have their second baby. They already had a son. He wrote that he wanted her to tell their children every day how much he loved them. He also told her to find love again and that she'll always be his forever.  
 
Autopsies showed that some men drown, some ran out of oxygen, and some died in a flash explosion where an oxygen cannister had exploded. There is no doubt that if Russia would’ve accepted help, most of the men would’ve survived. It is still, to this day, one of the greatest blackeye's  in Russia’s history.  
 
The 118 sailors on the Kursk left behind their family, friends, wives, and 71 children. I hope they’ve all found peace and joy after this tragic loss.  

Bias Against Chick-fil-A

10/22/2019

 
If you're a young person who has a job in the fast food business, the place you want to work is Chick-fil-A, a company that is usually at the top of best places to work.   Ask any employee you see at a Chick-fil-A what they think about the company and you'll hear that they have great benefits, including educational funds, but more than anything else, they'll tell you they love how they're treated so well by management.

The company doesn't  discriminate when they hire as their job application asks nothing about gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. It would be ridiculous if they did. The founder of the company doesn't believe in same sex marriage but that's his right; a right that is protected by the Constitution. He doesn't force his beliefs on others and his restaurants don't refuse to serve someone in the LBGTQ community. With the above in mind, here's part of an article from The New York Times, about Chick-fil-A's expansion into Britain:



"Just days after Chick-fil-A’s first restaurant in the United Kingdom opened and amid protests by activists about the company’s opposition to same-sex marriage, the chain said on Saturday it will close the site in six months. The Oracle, the shopping mall in Reading, England, where the restaurant leases space, told the BBC it would not allow Chick-fil-A to stay beyond its “initial six-month pilot period” and that it was the “right thing to do” after a call to boycott the chain by Reading Pride, a local lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender advocacy group."


What a horrific business decision Oracle made in shutting down Chick-fil-A. Why did they do it since there wasn't discrimination of any kind at the restaurant? They said it was: "the right thing to do," but it wasn't.  The chain doesn't discriminate against the LGBTQ community. They don't discriminate in their hiring practices. They don't discriminate in who they serve. So even though there's absolutely no evidence of discrimination, it doesn't matter. The truth doesn't matter if it can be shouted over. This happens much more in European nations but as we've seen, it's catching on here in a big way. 

The people who work at the Chick-fil-A in Britain will be out of a very good job where they're appreciated and respected, and local citizens will miss out on some awesome chicken and the best customer service in the fast food industry. The people and their supporters in the LGBTQ community didn't hurt the founder of Chick-fil-A, they hurt the people whose livelihoods were tied to the restaurant. This is a very sad situation and quite frankly, I'm sick of it. 

The History of Famous Candy Bars

10/22/2019

 
I don't know why the idea of researching this topic hit me, but I'm glad it did. I didn't have a clue that so many candy bars were introduced so long ago, a lot during the Great Depression. What I find most amazing, is that these candy bars are still extremely popular. Here you go:     

1) Hershey’s (1894) Milton S. Hershey began manufacturing chocolate as early as 1894. As a treat to the soldiers during WWI, he sent 30-pound chocolate blocks overseas. They were later converted to candy bars and after the war was over, Mr. Hersey sold them for five cents. Over 100 years later, it is still one of the top ten selling candy bars in the U.S. 

2)  Mars Bars (1911) Named after the founders of the company, the Mars’ brothers.

3) Baby Ruth (1920) Named in honor of President Grover Cleveland's daughter Ruth, who died at the age of 12. It is the 7th ranked selling candy bar. 

4) Mounds & Almond Joy (1920) Hershey’s Corporation introduced these two candy bars hoping that at least one would succeed; of course, they both did. Their advertising campaign of: “Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don’t,” is still one of the most effective jingles ever created.  

5) Oh, Henry! (1921) It was named after an amusing young man who was often hitting on women in Nestle's manufacturing plant. In good fun, the women would often say:  “Oh, Henry,” so as a joke, they went with the name. 

6) Butterfinger (1923) One of Butterfingers' first marketing campaigns was dropping the candy bars from airplanes in nearly 40 U.S. cities. Their fame as a popular chocolate candy soared as a result of this marketing. It is now the 4th best selling candy bar.  

7) Milky Way (1923) This was one of the most successful product launches for the Mars Corporation as in its first year the candy bar brought in $800,000 in sales which is equivalent to $12 million dollars today. It is currently the 5th ranked selling candy bar.

8) Mr. Goodbar (1925) Milton Hershey initially did not want the Hershey brand name associated with a chocolate bar that contained peanuts, so it was introduced as being produced by the "Chocolate Sales Corporation," a fictitious company. 

9) Reese's Peanut Butter Cups (1928) Harry Burnett Reese first began putting chocolate over peanut butter cups in 1923. He was a Hershey's employee and worked on the project on the side, so the idea wouldn't be stolen from him.  In the 1940’s and with new orange packaging, it became one of the most popular candy bars in the U.S.  To this day, it is ranked #2 in overall candy bar sales. 

10) Snickers (1930) A Mars, Inc. candy bar, the founders of the company named it after their favorite horse. Snickers has been the number one selling candy bar for decades. 

11) PayDay (1932) The employees of the company were allowed input on naming the candy bar, but they couldn’t come to an agreement until one employee, knowing it was payday, threw out the name and everyone loved it. 
 
12) Three Musketeers (1932) The Mars Company originally had three pieces of candy in one package, chocolate, strawberry and vanilla, so in an effort to come up with a name with three in it, so they went with "Three Musketeers.” It is the 6th ranked selling candy bar in the U.S. 

13) KitKat (1935) It was originally called Rowntree's Chocolate Crisp, but it wasn’t selling well until Hershey’s bought the candy bar and changed the name to KitKat. Their initial marketing strategy was to try to get it into the lunch boxes of working men. They later changed their marketing to make the candy bar cool to eat. It’s hard to get: “Give me a break, give me a break, give me a break of that KitKat bar,” out of one’s head. It is now the 3rd ranked selling candy bar in the U.S.

14) M&M’s (1941) The co-founder of Mars, Inc., Forrest Mars, was in Spain during their Civil War in the late 1930’s, and he noticed that many soldiers were consuming small chocolates covered in a sugar shell designed to keep the chocolate from melting. He brought the concept back to the U.S., and went with an ad slogan of: "M&M's melt in your mouth, not in your hand." They are now the 8th ranked selling chocolate candy. I realize this isn't a candy bar but I thought it was worth listing.    

15) Txix (1979) In an effort to come up with a name for the candy bar, they took “Twin biscuit sticks,” and said it again and again and eventually they ended up with a linguistic blend of the words and Txix was born.

A Billion

10/21/2019

 
1) A billion seconds ago, it was 1959.
2) A billion minutes ago, Jesus was alive.
3) A billion hours ago, it was the Stone Age.
4) A billion days ago, no one was walking on two feet.

I listed the above to bring home the impact of one billion.  A billion dollars was spent by the federal government in just the last eight hours. Have you noticed that now neither Party brings up the budget and our massive debt? Independents and Libertarians are about the only political parties  screaming about the matter; unfortunately there aren't enough of them to make a difference. Neither Democrats or Republicans have presented plans for a surplus budget so that we can begin to pay down our debt, shoot, they haven't even passed a balanced budget. 

What concerns me is that they don't care anymore. They believe they can get away with it and so far, they have. Too many people don't understand how large our debt is and more importantly, how the federal debt will negatively impact our lives. Ask almost anyone and they probably don't have a clue how they'll be personally affected and as someone once said, it's not a problem unless it's their problem. This opens up the opportunity for politicians to get away with what they have for so long.  

The bottom line is that an uneducated citizen is dangerous. Far more dangerous in my opinion than domestic terrorists because their lack of understanding as to the state of our union can do far more damage. Some people are asking for more and more things from the federal government when it's beyond broke. They're absolutely insane and if they somehow get what they want, the rest of us are going to face financial ruin.

Could you imagine only being able to stay afloat through credit? What happens when creditors say enough? If it were your household, how in the world could you pay down your debt so that you can receive credit again when you've been living off borrowed money? You wouldn't be able to do it without making major cuts to your personal budget. You might even need to sell some things. And once your money dries up because you're not getting more credit, then you'll be spending less and it will negatively impact your local economy.  I'm sure you can't imagine this because you'd never put yourself in the situation but the federal government has no problem with it. I find this very scary!      

Deplorable

10/21/2019

 
I find it very disheartening, as I see it as an erosion of U.S. values, is that some of the people who want more "free," stuff from the federal government, don't even pay taxes. Some young people demonstrate and riot over not having things like free healthcare, free college tuition, and paying off student loans, when they don't have a clue what it's like to have money taken out of their paychecks.

Democrats can call it whatever they want, but at its core, it is stealing peoples' money who have worked extremely hard for it. These people have families of their own to take care of. They have disadvantaged people in their communities who could use their donations. Their money is needed to stimulate their local economies which in turn helps everyone who lives there regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.
​

Attempting to gain and maintain power through robbing Peter to pay Paul, is immoral. They are deplorable, not honorable.
<<Previous

    Author: John Mann

    Picture

    Archives

    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly