Boycott George Clooney? How Un-American!
by Tom ShillueThis recent attempt at a SAG Awards’ boycott of eight actors by some Hollywood members of the Screen Actors Guild got me thinking about an Oscar night from almost ten years ago when the Academy was honoring Elia Kazan with a lifetime achievement award.
I remember being on sets or in casting-session waiting rooms and getting into heated “discussions” with actors about The Red Scare Blacklist, and how we should “never forgive anyone who named names to save their own skin.”
But Kazan only ever admitted to doing what he thought was right. But my actor friends, most of whom were born long after the period in question, and whose knowledge of The House Unamerican Activities Committee was usually limited to lectures from their favorite college professor, wouldn’t buy it. “Phooey,” they said. There was only one explanation: anyone who cooperated with HUAC was a coward motivated by ruthless career ambition. Anyone who refused to testify, however, did so only out of a high minded commitment to principles.
When, in the course of discussion, I would posit that perhaps Kazan, who had been a member of the Communist Party early in his career, honestly saw it as an evil that was a danger to his country and acted in good conscience, I was met with laughter. “You’re not serious, are you?” they would say.
Why are the motives of some rejected out of hand, while those of others are beyond questioning?
Which is why the current suggestion of a proposed actor boycott reminded me of Kazan. Here’s an excerpt form the current “anonymous” email that was “anonymously” forwarded by actress Frances Fisher. Referring to a group of actors who have come out against the SAG strike authorization, it says:
“If I were a regular, ordinary, not-rich-and-famous actor, and if I wanted my union to be strong so it could fight for me … would I want to give any of these rich-and-famous UNION-UNDERMINERS my vote? Would I want my union to give them such an honor — MY UNION’s ultimate stamp-of-approval? I would remember those names when I began to mark my ballot.”
Why can’t Ms. Fisher and these other union members understand that we just don’t agree with them. Why is it that those who do not want to strike are being divisive, but those who do are “fighting for me?” How is it that I am doing the undermining? Why is it not she who is undermining MY UNION?
Look at the video of Kazan’s poignant acceptance speech, with most in attendance giving the old master the respect he deserves. A few petulant holdouts sit with arms folded. It doesn’t seem to bother him. After thanking them, he says finally, “I think I can just slip away…”
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
53 Comments
You can’t watch the video. But never mind, I’ve heard it described before. Good article! I’ve always wondered why the heck actors had a union anyway. “I’m only getting paid 10 million to appear in this crappy movie! Go negotiate with them or I may have to give up my personal chef!”
In general, a person who fingers people for persecution for their political beliefs is not admirable.
““I’m only getting paid 10 million to appear in this crappy movie! Go negotiate with them or I may have to give up my personal chef!””
Because most actors don’t make anything close to that. They have unions for the same reason unions exist elsewhere: to fight for decent and uniform pay and benefits for their members.
I boycott Clooney anyway..heh.
How ironic is it (Karma, perhaps?) that George Clooney and Susan Sarandon are the subject of a boycott by… actors?
I vaguely remember that Kazan episode, and the mixed applause afterwords… unless my memory is failing me, wasn’t Ed Harris one of the petulant ones?
We conservatives MUST get this right. The liberals change everything around and mess with words.
it was called the HOUSE COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES it is always a House committe
When I read about the “boycott”" or even “blacklist,” I was move to try to pee off the reliably lefty actors who read Variety, so I posted this little reminder on their website — and it still hasn’t been removed, or slammed yet:
Actors being boycotted in Hollywood because of their views? Oh big deal. Boo frackin’ hoo. Like there isn’t already an informal boycott of those who don’t mouth by rote the leftist liberal mantra in Hollywood. Actors, writers, directors. Ever stop to wonder how a slew of box-office loser anti-war movies can keep getting financed. Total tanks — yet look out, here’s another one steaming down the toilet pan. Like anyone with half a brain (which you think would include most of Hollywood) would work out that a pro-Iraq war movie wouldn’t clean up at the BO. So am I worried that a loony lefty like the ever so dim Sarandon is going to be boycotted (she was the one who tried to get Dr Laura booted off TV) — no, I think it’s rather funny, luvvie
I have a question about the blacklist. The original blacklist, not this current fuzzle. Was the blacklist, condemned as totalitarian repression by many today, something imposed on Hollywood by government? Did the U.S. Government compile a list of actors who would be denied work based on their political beliefs, and then distribute this list to studios? Or was it something imposed on Hollywood by studio execs with an eye on their bottom line? Something done by actors to other actors out of fear?
SC,
I posted a response, but I think it got eaten. Basically, I was making a lame joke. Sorry.
I vaguely remember that Kazan episode, and the mixed applause afterwords… unless my memory is failing me, wasn’t Ed Harris one of the petulant ones?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes Ed Harris was one of them as was Nick Nolte. Not one of the Oscars finest moments. Right up there with Whoopie hosting the awards show.
Great question Paul—-it was not a government intervention.
Self censorship, within the industry.
And, as Orson Bean mentioned in his piece on the first day of BH, some actors and others found their names on lists because they attended a meeting or two….I believe Kazan learned that he was not involved with idealists, but rather nasty Communist front types. The ones who have managed to re-write the history, making themselves both the victims and the heroes.
This revisionism is part of what needs to be addressed in new productions based on what happened in the 1950s; granted, Whittaker Chambers is not handsome and dashing like Alger Hiss, but Hiss was a traitor, though Chambers has been vilified by the left as one.
SC,
I really don’t have a problem with fingering people who are actively and subversively working to bring about a political system that has murdered 100 million people. I have no problem standing up against people who think that the knock in the night is a good thing and that the subsequent removal to a killing cell is necessary to bring about paradise on earth.
It is simply not the same as standing up for voter rights, standing up for free and secret elections…after many years, and some personal experience with these people, I just don’t get how any one can express support for anyone who is actively working toward a totalitarian murder society.
Elia Kazan stood up against the majority in his community, the Hollywood community, who saw no problem with mass murderers because in their rather strange aesthetic, the killers were chic, like Che today.
SC, think about where you’ve received your ideas about “snitches”…you got it from Hollywood movies about prison and gangsters…is that really the society you want to live in?
I don’t. I don’t want to live with a 9mm under my pillow…but the world that you seem to revere is exactly that world…and I suspect that you don’t have the 9mm (I do).
KevinS
What almost never gets discussed about HUAC and the so called “blacklist” is it had more to do with union busting than communism. They thought the lefties were driving the unions to making too many demands, and they wanted to put them in their place. It was totally about money. The people who got banned, many of whom were very talented, ended up working again eventually. It was entirely a studio boss thing, the government had nothing to do with it. But they always try to pass the buck on the feds and Republicans. Elia Kazan had no affect on the blacklist. He testified at HUAC that he hated communism. Which he did. He was an immigrant from a country where he saw it in action.
Obviously, the commie symps saw him as a “traitor”. I remember when that Oscar award came up, a friend of mine whose an extra was telling me how so many actors on the set of a movie he was making wee outraged Kazan was getting an award. They didn’t even know the whole story, of course.
In 1952 there was a government investigation of juvenile delinquency and comic books were investigated. This led to the comics code which was a self censorship board. Again, the government didn’t make anyone do that. The publishers did that so they could destroy EC Comics of Mad Magazine fame, because they were too successful with their horror comics at the time. Their competitors wanted them banned so they would go out of business. Mad Magazine saved EC.
The ignorance of people today is that they believe the lies and propaganda of the lefties who always use these events to attack conservatives, when it’s really a matter of labor vs bosses.
jack Marino – January 10th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
We conservatives MUST get this right. The liberals change everything around and mess with words.
it was called the HOUSE COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES it is always a House committe
Bravo Jack = = The thing is about that event in history is how many people associate Senator McCarthy as leading it. It is amazing that the political myth is so ingrained that people won’t accept that he had nothing to do with it. The Senate Committee hearing where about peoplein government thought to be actual spies due to the deciphering of Sovient Codes not made public at the time. While McCarthy was probably right investigating his grandstanding tactics and the public circus he created probably hurt the accomplishment of that goal greatly.
Still as a Senator he could not be Chariman of the HOUSE COMMITTEE ON UN American Activities. The names of the Congressmen responsible are not stressed in the political myth. I suspect it was because many of them were Democrats but I don’t know.
Perhaps someone in Big Hollywood could write a blog article detailing what the actual events of that incident in history were concentrating on the historical facts more than the emotional outrage. Not to belittle the emotional outrage but I get why the actors did not like it. I don’t get what actually happened. I admit I don’t know enough and it would be eductional I think.
Think of it as an homage to the history channel or something like that…
Just wishful thinking.
To Jack Marino:
May I suggest that you read the truly magesterial book by Staunton Evans about McCarthy entitled “Blacklisted by History.” This book will answer all of your questions and show you why Hollywood’s hysterics then and now are all about nothing. Even Humphrey Bogart and Betty Bacall who went to Washington,in support of the blacklisted, later said they were lied to, taken advantage of and exploited by Hollywood McCarthy haters.
Patricia A. Helvenston, Ph.D.
After witnessing the churlish behavior by Ed Harris, Amy Madigan and others against Kazan I have never watched the Oscars since and I see no reason to start again.
I’ve been alive for 27 years. In that time, I’ve had to sit through 27 years of “liberals” enshrining McCarthy, the Blacklist, the Hollywood Ten etc. as a defining moment of their personal mythology. For the most part, they have a point – but it’s tiresome. Will I now endure 27 MORE years of “conservatives” trying to enshrine the reverse of the same mythology? Because that will be REALLY tiresome.
McCarthy WAS an obsessed, vindictive, power-mad drunkard. The Hollywood Ten WERE (some of them, anyway) less “idealistic” than they are remembered. The Soviet threat was NOT as dire as McCarthy etc. claimed it was, and it was ALSO NOT as benign as his opponents tended to claimed. It’s a black spot on the history of the Cold War, one where – regardless of where you or I or anyone else falls politically – we diverted our attention from legitimate Cold War threats abroad by dwelling on which famous people went to the wrong fundraiser. It’s time both sides left this one to history.
“Why is it that those who do not want to strike are being divisive, but those who do are “fighting for me?” ”
For the Left, it isn’t simply a matter of opposing points of view. It has been, is and always will be about destroying your opponent. The opposing argument is irrelevant; it must simply be destroyed because of its ideological apostasy.
Example: Same-sex marriage proponents never argue the case on its merits or demerits of their movement. Same-sex marriage opponents are hate-filled bigots who must be driven from public life. There is not a single case that I can think of where a Same-sex marriage opponent boycotted their opponent’s business or forced someone who favors Same-sex Marriage out of a job. Opposing Same-sex Marriage is apostasy from the “Progressive” ideology and must be destroyed.
Well I WAS alive for those hearings and, to this very day, not a single person McCarthy claimed was a communist in our government at the time (mostly in the Department of State) has EVER been shown NOT to have been precisely what McCarthy accused them of being…not a single one. THAT little fact has somehow been forgotten in all the McCarthy-bashing undertaken by those on the left who absolutely HATED the idea that having communists in the bowels of the U.S. government was somehow a bad thing.
Hollywood has no hesitation to ruin individuals they target by gossip and boycotts as real as possible yet unstated (the targets are ridiculed at social events and in daily chats with others). So the expectation that there’s something honorable in NOT naming those who ruin others — whether by national organizations or by local ones — seems out of whack today, in light of how the entertainment industry works: by ruining others.
I’m with Stephanie, Clooney is Boycotted!
McCarthy has been wrongly “reworked” in contemporary gossip (there’s that word again) and youth indoctrinated with a contrary image of who he was and what he was motivated to accomplish.
His goals and intents were constructive and well aimed.
There were many repeated remarks on the internet last year by pro-Obama supporters that wrote, “what’s wrong with communism” as challenge whenever there was criticism (accurately) of the Left’s/Obama’s/Democrats’ marxist/communist noise level rising.
So it’s a game that’s played and comes right out of the “Rules for Radicals” communist handbook by Alinsky, to pose that very rhetorical question: it attempts to remove the negatives about being communist, about communism, as if it’s just another kids’ club among others.
And that extends to how McCarthy’s work and intents have been smeared by the Left, inorder to discourage acceptance that what he was attempting was to identify the negatives among our nation — a stated objective of communism, by the way, is to destroy Capitalism and democracy. So it’s not a lightweight consideration. Ruining McCarthy’s credibility is necessary for the Left inorder to suppress the truth about marxism/communism.
“After witnessing the churlish behavior by Ed Harris, Amy Madigan and others against Kazan I have never watched the Oscars since and I see no reason to start again.”
- – - – -
Yeah, agreed, that display ruined my ability to watch the broadcast again, too. Was pitiful. Particularly what with Kazan’s work having been so exceptional.
About Clooney, boycotting him, Sarandon, several others I’d include for other reasons, I’ve been doing so recently — not purchasing their products. It’s difficult for me to even watch good films they’ve made (Clooney, particularly, he’s a talented actor) after becoming more aware of who they are in reality, their politics. I just can’t any longer toss money their way.
“Douglas – January 10th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
How ironic is it (Karma, perhaps?) that George Clooney and Susan Sarandon are the subject of a boycott by… actors?
I vaguely remember that Kazan episode, and the mixed applause afterwords… unless my memory is failing me, wasn’t Ed Harris one of the petulant ones?”
There is a decent dose of irony in that Harris’s wife Amy Madigan denounced the Horrors of Stalinism in ‘Field of Dreams’ & yet SHE & Harris actually diss one of the few Men in H’wood who actually stood up to the Stalinists—but I’m sure SHE probably failed to catch that little factoid;
nm
I applaud everyone that boycotts stupidity! Take a bow Mr. Looney.
YouTube scrubbed the video, here’s another link to it…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YziNNCZeNs&feature=related
Daniel Crandall – January 10th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
“There is not a single case that I can think of where a Same-sex marriage opponent boycotted their opponent’s business or forced someone who favors Same-sex Marriage out of a job. Opposing Same-sex Marriage is apostasy from the “Progressive” ideology and must be destroyed.”
As a conservative-leaning moderate I tend to agree, but I find it somewhat ironic that some, not all, but some, conservatives are perfectly willing to call for a boycott on actors (many of which are incorporated, thus making them businesses), who do not share their beliefs, thus taking steps to attempt to make them fail. Do you care about the politics of the chef who made your dinner? If the character in the movie is against everything you stand for, then so be it, don’t see it, but if they make good movies, I’ll see ‘em.
It’s always interesting to read people berating those who “named names” so many years ago. Perhaps, their upset is that the names named were involved in Left wing politics and, of course, from their defenders’ point of view Leftists are idealists who only want a “better” world even if achieving that better world leads to gulags, executions, mass murders, show trials, etc. I wonder if those who are so upset by the Blacklist against Leftists would be so upset if the HUAC had been investigating Fascists or Nazis who also tried to achieve their “better” wotld with concentration camps, executions, mass murders, show trials, etc. I doubt it. They would have hailed the HUAC and called those who named names “heroes”. It’s just another example of how the Left sees their totalitarians as heroes and good guys while Right wing thugs are the enemy. Don’t believe me? Then look at the Left’s veneration of Guevara and Castr and its hatred for Pinochet and Videla.
“The Soviet threat was NOT as dire as McCarthy etc. claimed it was,”
hmm… when I read about the killing of over 100,000,000 people I think about how dire communism is. It ain’t a nice party to belong to.
What Kazan’s true motives were is something that I have been struggling with for more than two years now, as I have been, since 2006, portraying him on stage; portraying him wrestling, in fact, with whether or not to cooperate with HUAC in April, 1952.
I have endeavored to give, in my performance, a compelling defense of his ultimate choice—to, indeed, cooperate with HUAC and name the names of his former comrades in the Communist Party cell within The Group Theatre of the 1930’s. Many liberal-leaning audience members have grudgingly acknowledged the validity of my defense—and, therefore, the validity of Kazan’s choice.
But just as I would caution liberals about demonizing Kazan, I would caution conservatives about lionizing him. He always—before and after his cooperative testimony—considered himself a man of the left. His leftism had strong streaks of patriotism and individualism, but one should not consider him a conservative. Perhaps the most salient feature (relative to our present discussion) of his liberalism—a feature which he more or less discovered as a result of his HUAC dilemma—is that it was anti-Stalinist. Political philosophy wonks might be familiar with the work of Sidney Hook. It is Hook’s brand of anti-Stalinist liberalism that Kazan most closely identified with.
You may, as a conservative, be justified in gleefully waving the righteousness of that stance in the faces of Kazan-hating lefties, but you can’t claim Kazan as one of your own.
H’wood is very good at boycotts and blacklists.
I recall the night Hanoi Jane Fonda dragged an aged Lillian Hellman on stage at the Oscars. Lillian had been blacklisted by H’wood for some reason, perhaps her Commie leanings. Hanoi Jane decided it was time H’wood ended its boycott of Hellman. At that time, Hanoi Jane was still dedicated to her “hate America” theology. I remember that the audience rose to their feet in homage to Hellman.
Pat why would I need to read al about the blacklist and all the nonsense? I know enough about it and knew Hollywood people that were blacklisted and those who were for getting rid of the commies. My point is that the media and history calls the Committee by the wrong name in everything they write and talk about. It wasn’t the House un-American activities committee, it was the house committee of un-American activities and it was started before WWII to grab pro nazis and anarchist. The commie thing came in when Stalin refuse to pull out after Yalta because that idiot president for 16 years screwed up Yalta or did he? He was a closet commie lover and he admired that mass murderer stalin as a lot of leftist retards did and still do. The whole thing was a farce and I wrote it all down and the spam ate my last post. It will get this one too probably
mr hudnall,
you are very good at revisionist history…with a twist
kazan did indeed state that he hated communism…but he most certainly did name names. sure, the committee already had the names…but it didnt matter. he named names to save his career. others chose not to and paid for it.
commie sympths? i think you need to relook at the list again…
huac had nothing to do with the black list? the studio heads on their own decided to do it? really? in the early stages of the cold war, there wasnt the fear of the loss of box office if it came out in public that members or former members of the communist party were working in hollywood? how naive can you be?
as for the code…yes, it was mostly done to destroy ec. but to say that congress didnt force the comics industry into some sort of action is absurd.
I haven’t seen a cLooney film since I became aware of his rabid-left stance, so I suppose I have boycotted him for some time.
I’ve been boycotting Clooney eversince he made fun of Charlton Heston. Clooney deserves whatever is said about him.
Declining to buy a product that grates on you for whatever reason is not a boycott. Have any of you organized a campaign to influence others to do as you do until Clooney capitulates or you drive him out of business? Didn’t think so. I avoid seeing plenty of objectionable actors myself. That’s a consumer decision, not a boycott.
Jack Marino, The first lie from the leftists is when they call themselves ‘liberal.’ True liberalism is based on the rights of the individual. Leftists (commie/socialists) believe individual rights defer to the needs of the collective as if humans should live like bees and ants.
‘Liberal’ is the first of many words they ‘mess’ with.
We agree on everything now! lol.
“Anyone who refused to testify, however, did so only out of a high minded commitment to principles.”
Or were devout closeted “fifth element” communists…
Leftist don’t seem to care that most if not all accused of being communists, and more importantly, disseminating communist propaganda, were actually guilty as sin, because these leftists goals were and are the same. Whittaker Chambers, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, even Vice President of the U.S., Wallace, were all actual paid Soviet agents as revealed by FBI investigation and the Venona intercepts and released KGB paybook records. You see, the lefties are just angry that their fellow travelers GOT CAUGHT. Now it seems, when the left runs things, it’s just fine to BLACK LIST people based on their political beliefs, such as loving the US, its Constitution and freedom in general.
“What Kazan’s true motives were is something that I have been struggling with for more than two years now,”
Kazan’s masterpiece On the Waterfront tells you so much about his true motives; it’s all laid out in the film.
One point about defining Conservative or Liberal, whatever these philosophies were before Roe vs Wade they changed after that discriminatory and illiberal law was forced through judicial fiat upon the nation.
I would further say that today Conservatism is the Classical Liberal while Liberalism is the Collective Marxist.
Or rather, the day after JFK was shot dead Collectivists moved into power by consuming the Classical Liberal to its death then finally solidifying its place in American politics through the imposition of Roe vs Wade.
WF Buckley picked up the remaining half-eaten Classical Liberals and brought them back to life through Conservatism- a philosophy which seeks to retain America’s founding principles represented in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Collectivists, on the other hand, have been actively seeking to completely shred the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and any association with the America’s founding principles.
I don’t boycott actors, per se, but after you’ve listened to their whining screeds long enough, it infects the characters they play. Just as Doris Day was “the girl next door,” Susan Sarandon is “the whining leftist shrew.” They are welcome to do and be who they are, but the in-your-face ranting makes that “wall” a really shallow one.
It’s like not choosing to go to a party where your ex-wife is being feted — the food could be good and it might be a pleasant evening, except for the stomach-turning and irony and bloated ridiculousness of watching the wench shine and be sainted. Besides that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
I don’t boycott actors, per se, but after listening to their whining screeds for awhile, it’s hard to separate them from the characters they play. Doris Day is “the girl next door,” Susan Sarandon is “the whining leftist shrew.”
It’s like attending a party where your ex-wife is to be honored — the food could be good and it might be a pleasant evening, except for the stomach-turning irony and bloated ridiculousness of seeing her sainted. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
SC, membership in the Communist Party was not simply a matter of personal political belief. The CPUSA operated as a propaganda arm of the Soviet Union. It was not in any way an organic, American political party but was funded and directed by the Soviets.
It is probably true that most members were simply “useful idiots” rather than willing accomplices. There was no excuse for such ignorance, it must be considered a willful ignorance by that time. Roger Baldwin founder of the ACLU and himself a communist, but an American and apparently patriotic one, knew this and was happy to tell anyone who would listen. He actively purged the organization of CP members. This should be telling you something that the ACLU considered the CPUSA wrong and dangerous.
In short, by the 1950s any American belonging to the CPUSA was, in modern slang, a tool. A singularly stupid tool serving a bloody and immoral cause that was inimical to our country.
“Or rather, the day after JFK was shot dead BY A COLLECTIVIST Collectivists moved into power ….”
FIFY. That part almost never gets mentioned.
Fact is, it’s conservatives who object to Kazan’s treatment and clearly we do without regard to whether his personal beliefs have ever lined up with ours. That the anti-communists were right after all is just gravy.
We already boycot actors. If they have the freedom of speech to use their celebrity to spew hatred of their country, our country, I exercise my right to choose how I spend my entertainment dollars. I can tell you this… I will NOT spend money on a movie, video, or magazine that features the likes of Anti-Americans like Jane Fonda, or the modern versions we see in Susan Sarandon, etc. I don’t care how lovely they are to look at, country first, entertainment second. There are PLENTY of entertainment choices out there. If you got food poisoning from a restaraunt, you would not go back. Well, I have seen patriotism poisoning from these actors. I don’t drink from their well anymore.
Oh, and they don’t even play by their own rules. Let’s forget opinions and views here…no politics involved at all in this anaylsis… several of the recent ‘academy’ awards were giving to projects (movies) that, by the academy’s OWN RULES, DID NOT QUALIFY in the category they won in. (Yes, I purposely did NOT capitolize ‘academy’.)
So, if they use their awards to make a political statement, are they themselves boycotting actors that don’t share their views, and the very system they put in place?
I love a lively discussion or debate. But I hate a set up, or cover up.
Speaking of Hollywood Lefties, Richard Dreyfuss is opening his big yap to blast Sarah Palin. He’s only the latest. Read more about it at:
http://conservativeamerican.org/conservatives/sarah-palin-official-fan-club/dreyfuss-disses-palin/
I hear where GEORGE CLOONEY is doing a remake of ALFRED HITCHCOCK classic THE BIRDS and knowing how they are pushing this GLOBAL WARMING poppycock it was use this as reason the birdies are angry SOME BIRD SHOULD TAKE A POOP RIGHT ON CLOONEYS FAT HEAD
Nadadhimmi,
You are dead wrong about Whittaker Chambers: he was never an FBI informer and certainly never paid. Get your facts straight. Elizabeth Bentley, Louis Budenz, and others in the 1950s were paid: Chambers was not.
I would watch a growing, official website to see whether this issue arises: http://www.whittakerchambers.org/
Wouldnt it be nice if some late vitnam vet is reincarnated as a bird and take and poop right on clooneys head
AXIOS!!!
Hi very good post will visit again keep up the good work
You must be logged in to post a comment.