Sign in to follow this  

Why You Need Trusted News Sources

Recommended Posts

Were it not for the fact that people who don’t know any better might believe it… this sort of stuff would not even be worth responding to. The only “military grade” weapon being brought to bear here is propaganda and I think I know who’s paying for it now.

About 450 people drown in Canada every year.... why would anyone need a pool on their property? 

There are about 2000 traffic fatalities each year and many are due to excessive speed... why does anyone need a car that goes faster than 100 KPH? Same for motorcycles, that's another 200 a year.

And before you say.... because, "when used as directed" guns kill, each day 100 Canadians die from using tobacco products "as directed"

Ya.... I can do this all day!

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what jumps out as a headline in the Globe this morning??


A video showing a 15-year-old refugee from Syria being choked and bullied outside a school in Northern England has prompted outrage across the U.K. and raised questions about how to combat rising hate crime.


Where was our national paper on this story???  I don’t recall any headlines for this:

A total of 17 men and one woman have been convicted of offences including rape, sexual abuse, supplying drugs and trafficking for sexual exploitation in a series of trials over the Newcastle case.

Of eight victims covered in the trials, six were white and two were of African heritage, while the perpetrators came from a diverse range of backgrounds including Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Indian, Iranian, Iraqi, Kurdish, Turkish, Albanian and Eastern European.


Read more



The review said that while perpetrators’ individual beliefs are not known, they “all appear to come from a non-white, predominantly Asian/British minority ethnic culture or background” – as in Rotherham, Rochdale and Oxfordshire, while a grooming gang in Bristol were from a Somali background.


Diversity is our strength, Diversity is our strength, Diversity is our strength,.........if you’re a liberal, repeat as necessary.

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Country hopes to deter the sort of behaviour we're told represents a cultural norm that's widely practiced by the wonderful people that came to you in search of a better life, its government is going to have to hang the dirtbags and be done with it, or leave the nation's little girls to face much more of the same.



Edited by DEFCON

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Should read as .....Canadian Media...”Now bought and paid for by Trudeau”



Edited by Jaydee

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how war is being wages these days...

Agents of doubt How a powerful Russian propaganda machine chips away at Western notions of truth

The initial plan was a Cold War classic — brutal yet simple. Two Russian agents would slip onto the property of a turncoat spy in Britain and daub his front door with a rare military-grade poison designed to produce an agonizing and untraceable death.


Understanding Russia’s global influence

But when the attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal was botched, the mission quickly shifted. Within hours, according to British and U.S. officials who closely followed the events, a very different kind of intelligence operation was underway, this one involving scores of operatives and accomplices and a scheme straight out of the Kremlin’s 21st-century communications playbook — the construction of an elaborate fog machine to make the initial crime disappear.

Dozens of false narratives and conspiracy theories began popping up almost immediately, the first of 46 bogus story lines put out by Russian-controlled media and Twitter accounts and even by senior Russian officials, according to a tabulation by The Washington Post — all of them sowing doubt about Russia’s involvement in the March 4 assassination attempt. Ranging from the plausible to the fantastical, the stories blamed a toxic spill, Ukrainian activists, the CIA, British Prime Minister Theresa May and even Skripal himself.

The brazenness of the attempt to kill a Russian defector turned British citizen at his home in southwest England outraged Western governments and led to the expulsion of some 150 Russian diplomats by more than two dozen countries, including the United States. Yet, more than eight months later, analysts see a potential for greater harm in the kind of heavily coordinated propaganda barrage Russia launched after the assassination attempt failed.

Intelligence agencies have tracked at least a half-dozen such distortion campaigns since 2014, each aimed, officials say, at undermining Western and international investigative bodies and making it harder for ordinary citizens to separate fact from falsehood. They say such disinformation operations are now an integral part of Russia’s arsenal — both foreign policy tool and asymmetrical weapon, one that Western institutions and technology companies are struggling to counter.

“Dismissing it as fake news misses the point,” said a Western security official who requested anonymity in discussing ongoing investigations into the Russian campaign. “It’s about undermining key pillars of democracy and the rule of law.”

Variations on the technique existed during the Cold War, when the Soviet Union used propaganda to create alternative realities. In the early years of President Vladi­mir Putin’s rule, Russian officials and state-owned broadcasters promoted false narratives to explain the death of Alexander Litvinenko, the former Russian security official who died in 2006 after being exposed to a radioactive toxin in London.

But the disinformation campaigns now emanating from Russia are of a different breed, said intelligence officials and analysts. Engineered for the social media age, they fling up swarms of falsehoods, concocted theories and red herrings, intended not so much to persuade people but to bewilder them.

“The mission seems to be to confuse, to muddy the waters,” said Peter Pomerantsev, a former Russian-television producer and author of “Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible,” a memoir that describes the Kremlin’s efforts to manipulate the news. The ultimate aim, he said, is to foster an environment in which “people begin giving up on the facts.”

A blizzard of falsehoods

After two would-be assassins bungled their attempt to poison Russian ex-spy Sergei Skripal in Britain, the Kremlin launched a high-powered disinformation campaign to create confusion over what really happened, Western agencies say. Russia media disseminated as many as 46 false stories and conspiracy theories in an attempt to sow doubt about whether Moscow was involved in the crime. Many of the phony tales were spread across social media and repeated by senior politicians.

Moscow has repeatedly rejected such accusations, while suggesting that Britain is responsible for any confusion over what happened in the Skripal case. “Nine months has passed and so far we have not been presented with any official results of the investigation,” Russia’s London Embassy said in a statement to The Post. “The Embassy still has no access to our Russian citizens,” a reference to Skripal and his Russian daughter, Yulia Skripal, who was also sickened in the attack.

Yet the same tactics that were observed in the wake of the Skripal poisoning have been employed multiple times since the annexation of Crimea in 2014, in each case following roughly the same script. When pro-Russian separatists shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine, killing 298 passengers and crew members, Russian officials and media outlets sought to pin the blame on the Ukrainian government, suggesting at one point that corpses had been trucked to the crash site to make the death toll appear higher.

State-controlled Russian media unleashed a fusillade of falsehoods after the assassination of reformist politician Boris Nemtsov in Moscow in 2015 and after at least three deadly chemical weapons attacks against civilians by Syria’s pro-Russian government.

And apart from these concerted campaigns, there is a daily churn of false or distorted reports that seem designed to exploit the divisions in Western society and politics, especially on issues such as race, violence and sexual rights, and that are pushed by droves of operatives posing as ordinary citizens on social media accounts.

While many of the individual stories are easily debunked, the campaigns have had a discernible impact, as measured by opinion polls and, occasionally, public statements by Western politicians casting doubt on the findings of the intelligence agencies of their own governments. In October 2015, months after U.S. and European investigators concluded that Flight 17 had been brought down by a Russian missile fired by separatists, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump told CNN that the culprit was “probably Russia” but suggested that the truth was unknowable.

“To be honest with you, you’ll probably never know for sure,” he said.

Results such as these have encouraged what private groups say is a massive and ever-increasing investment by Moscow, which has placed numerous news outlets fully or partly on its payroll and operates at least one troll factory in which scores of employees disseminate pro-Kremlin messages using thousands of fake social media accounts.

The cost of this matrix is about $1.3 billion a year, according to Russian budget documents — a modest sum, considering the benefits, said Jakub Kalensky, until recently an official with the East StratCom Task Force, a rapid-response team created by the European Union to counter Russian disinformation. Unlike the covert operations used by Russia to influence foreign elections, Russia’s distortion campaigns rarely invite retaliation, he said.

“For Russia, they are a cost-effective method for disrupting and undermining us,” Kalensky said. “You can have quite a good result for the money spent.”

By any objective measure, the assassination attempt on Sergei Skripal was an unalloyed disaster, the kind of intelligence-agency face plant that might have toppled a government if the operation had been carried out by a Western democracy. For the Kremlin, however, the bungled killing was quickly seized on as a public-relations opportunity.

A Russian military intelligence officer who was released to Britain as part of a spy swap in 2010, Skripal was the object of special scorn for Putin, who would publicly deride him as a traitor and a “scumbag.” Skripal had been convicted in Russia in 2006 of treason for spying for Britain and was serving a 13-year sentence at the time of the swap.

British investigators say two operatives from the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence agency, were dispatched to Skripal’s adopted hometown with a perfume bottle filled with Novichok — a deadly nerve agent developed by Soviet scientists in the 1980s — with the aim of quietly poisoning the 67-year-old pensioner.

Almost nothing went according to plan. The operatives came up short in their quest to kill Skripal. He fell gravely ill along with his daughter, but both recovered after being aggressively treated by doctors for exposure to a suspected nerve agent. Moreover, investigators say, the Russian agents compounded their failure with the inadvertent death of a British woman who became ill after her boyfriend stumbled upon a discarded vial of Novichok and gave it to her, thinking it was perfume.

British investigators quickly identified the toxin as a Russian nerve agent and then publicly identified the suspected hit men, who were repeatedly caught on camera as they wandered around in Salisbury on March 4. Their cover story — the two claimed to be tourists visiting the city’s 13th-century cathedral — was riddled with holes. Surveillance camera footage showed the men walking not toward the cathedral but in the opposite direction, toward the residential neighborhood where Skripal lived. The exiled Russian was poisoned the same day.

“They failed to kill their target, and they failed to be covert,” said retired Rear Adm. John Gower, who oversaw nuclear, chemical and biological defense policy for Britain’s Defense Ministry. “Because of those failures, Russia had to pivot really quickly.”

And so, when the real facts became problematic, Gower said, Russia quickly manufactured new ones. Dozens of them.

A parade of false stories

The Kremlin’s propaganda machine swung into action in the immediate aftermath of the assassination attempt. Following a playbook already honed in response to events in Syria and Ukraine, Kremlin-controlled outlets produced a plethora of possible explanations. On March 6, two days after the poisoning, the Russian news agency RIA Novosti was already quoting an anesthesiologist saying that the manner of Skripal’s poisoning suggested he was a drug addict and had overdosed.

On March 8 alone, pro-Kremlin news outlets published five phony narratives about the events in Salisbury, offering explanations for Skripal’s illness that included an attempted suicide by Skripal and his daughter and a chemical-weapons leak at the nearby military laboratory at Porton Down.

Dmitry Kiselyov — the host of the program “Vesti Nedeli” (“News of the Week”) on the Rossiya 1 network and a leading figure in the country’s propaganda hierarchy — picked up the baton on March 11. He said that because Skripal was already “completely wrung out and of little interest” as a source, his poisoning was only advantageous to the British to “nourish their Russophobia” and organize a boycott of the summer’s World Cup soccer tournament in Russia.

Then it was the Skripals’ pets turn in the spotlight — two guinea pigs and a fluffy Persian cat named Nesh Van Drake. The lack of information about their condition, Russian officials said in remarks that were broadcast on state TV, showed the British were surely covering something up.

“Where are these pets now?” Russia’s U.N. ambassador, Vasily Nebenzya, asked at a Security Council meeting on April 5. “What has happened to them? Why has nobody said anything about them? Their condition is very important evidence.”

The theories kept coming: Was it someone from the Baltics? Was Skripal poisoned on MI5-sponsored trips to chemical labs in the Czech Republic and Spain? Could it be a British government plot to distract attention from Brexit — or even from a pedophilia scandal in the western English town of Telford?

The Skripal affair, RIA Novosti columnist Ivan Danilov wrote, “will continue as long as the government of Theresa May needs it to resolve its own internal problems.”

ritish officials and experts who studied the events say the false narratives emerged from a Russian information ecosystem in which news outlets and social media networks are increasingly intertwined with the country’s intelligence apparatus and official communications organs. While independent media voices flourished briefly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Putin years have been marked by assassinations of prominent journalists and the silencing or muting of dissent. In recent years, the control over many of the largest news outlets has become nearly absolute, officials and analysts say.

Putin brought Russia’s privately owned, freewheeling TV networks to heel in one of his first major moves as president. The Kremlin now controls all of Russia’s main national television channels — and half of all Russians say television is their most trusted source of news. The channels deliver a strident, conspiratorial, pro-Kremlin message in hours of lavishly produced talk shows and newsmagazine programs every night.

That domestic propaganda machine is backed up by state-owned news agencies, RIA Novosti and Tass, and a stable of pro-Kremlin newspapers and websites. The government expects to spend $303 million on state broadcaster VGTRK and $293 million on RT, the international broadcaster, this year, according to the latest official figures.

Although the Internet in Russia is mostly uncensored and reporting critical of Putin is widely available in print, online and on the radio, the government’s voice is by far the loudest in Russia’s media landscape.

Providing further amplification are social media “troll” factories — including one in St. Petersburg known as the Internet Research Agency, described in a Justice Department indictment earlier this year — where hundreds of workers are paid to disseminate false stories on the Internet, under official direction, U.S. officials said. After a crisis, Russia’s information network lurches into action, promoting stories and theories favored by the Kremlin, often with remarkable creativity, say officials and analysts.

“Different parts of the system echo each other, so the stories build momentum,” said Ben Nimmo, a British-based researcher with the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, which analyzes government disinformation campaigns.

Russian politicians and diplomats then chime in, often ridiculing any official investigation and denouncing claims of Russian involvement, Nimmo said. Russian diplomats — and on multiple occasions, Putin himself — publicly scoffed at Britain’s claims that Russian operatives were behind the Skripal poisoning. The Twitter account of the Russian Embassy in London echoed several of the false stories from social media, suggesting that Skripal was a British spy and theorizing that British military scientists had synthesized their own batch of Novichok, with help from a Soviet chemist who defected to the West.

“In absence of evidence, we definitely need Poirot in Salisbury,” the embassy tweeted, in an allusion to Hercule Poirot, the fictional detective created by novelist Agatha Christie. Some British officials regard such denials as beyond cynical, as the use of Novichok in the poisoning was widely seen as deliberate — a subtle, unspoken claim of responsibility intended to warn other dissidents not to cross Moscow.

Some of the attempts to reshape the Skripal narrative backfired. After British officials on Sept. 5 released surveillance photographs of a pair of Russians suspected of carrying out the plot, RT aired an interview in which the two men claimed that they had been mere tourists in Britain. Their story began to unravel days later when a report by the investigative news site Bellingcat assembled compelling evidence that both men were GRU officers.

The men made no effort in the RT interview to explain the traces of Novichok police discovered in their hotel room and instead made an awkward attempt to explain why they made two quick trips to Salisbury over a wintry March weekend. One of them described a desire to see the Salisbury cathedral’s “123-meter spire” and ancient clock, two features that appear on the cathedral’s Wikipedia entry.

Pro-Kremlin media also started pushing the story line that the two men might be gay — and, by implication, could not possibly be part of Russia’s military intelligence service. The “Vesti” news show ran a segment depicting Salisbury as imbued with a spirit of “modern European tolerance” and full of gay bars. In fact, a local newspaper said the town’s sole gay bar had closed three months before the Skripal poisoning.

Yet, even as the alibi attempt turned into farce, Russia’s Foreign Ministry continued to claim that Britain had concocted evidence to frame the men for a crime they could not possibly have committed. “There is no proof,” spokeswoman Maria Zakharova wrote in a Facebook posting on Sept. 26, asserting that Britain was seeking to divert the public’s attention from the real story of “what happened in Salisbury.”

As the false stories began to be picked apart, Russia responded with “a mixture of defiance and desperation,” Nimmo said. “You can see the Russian propaganda machine struggling over what to do.”

And yet by then, it no longer mattered. By multiple measures, Moscow had mostly succeeded in achieving the outcome it wanted most — doubt.

A bewildered public

Last month, an independent pollster set out to measure how ordinary Russians viewed the events in Salisbury. The result: Despite lab reports, surveillance photographs and a detailed criminal complaint by British investigators, Russians overwhelmingly rejected the notion that their government was involved in the attack.

Nearly 3 in 10 of the Russians surveyed said they believed Britain was behind the poisoning, while 56 percent agreed with the comment “It could have been anyone,” according to the Levada Center poll, conducted during the third week of October. Only 3 percent were willing to attribute the assassination attempt to Russia’s intelligence agencies.

Indeed, the Kremlin managed to turn the botched assassination and the ensuing Western uproar to Putin’s political advantage. The Russian presidential election was on March 18, and Putin was looking for high voter turnout to legitimize another six-year term. The Skripal affair allowed the Kremlin to turn the public’s attention away from domestic problems and back to the confrontation between Russia and the West — a winning issue for Putin.

By quickly accusing Russia of being behind the poisoning, Britain’s May gave Putin a “pre-election present,” Gleb Pavlovsky, a former Kremlin adviser turned prominent Putin critic, said at the time. “She angered the voters a little bit and gave him another three to five percentage points of turnout.”

Levada sociologist Denis Volkov said the result showed the compelling nature of the us-vs.-them narrative constructed by the Kremlin and state media over the past two decades. In that reality, the West is bent on stopping Russia from returning to great-power status after it brought the country to its knees in the 1990s. The story line builds on many Russians’ memories of chaos, violence and poverty in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

In focus groups, Volkov said, people sometimes acknowledged the likelihood of Russian involvement in the Skripal poisoning after initially rejecting it. After all, the respondents said, Russia was in a new Cold War with the West, and since the United States and its allies were lying, cheating and killing, Russia had to as well.

“They’ll say, ‘Sure, yeah, we might’ve done it,’ ” Volkov said. “ ‘But what’s the problem? Everyone’s doing it. There’s a war going on, even if it’s a cold war, between Russia and the West. So it’s okay to do it. The main thing is to deny everything.’ ”

Russia’s propaganda organs targeting foreign audiences — the television network RT and the web of radio stations and websites called Sputnik — also promote an anti-American narrative. While Russia’s domestic messaging builds on Russians’ bitterness stemming from the instability after the Soviet collapse, Moscow’s foreign propaganda message capitalizes on an aversion to what is seen as U.S. hegemony and hypocrisy in many parts of the world.

It’s less clear how effective RT and Sputnik are in pushing Russia’s message abroad. In Britain, the Kremlin’s version of the events in Salisbury has been widely debunked by independent news media. But in central and eastern Europe, where Russian channels in multiple languages are part of the standard cable-TV lineup, the contradictory claims have left viewers confused and bewildered — precisely what the designers of the propaganda campaign intended, said Kalensky, the former E.U. investigator.

“The strategy is to spread as many versions of events as possible and don’t worry that they sometimes contradict themselves,” Kalensky said. “It’s not the purpose to persuade someone with one version of events. The goal for Russia is achieve a state in which the average media consumer says, ‘There are too many versions of events, and I’ll never know the truth.’ ”

Even in the West, government agencies fear that Russia’s efforts are contributing to a growing distrust in traditional sources of information and blurring the line between fact and fiction. While RT’s viewership is relatively small in the West, its stories are frequently recycled on right-wing websites and media outlets.

Just as often, the stream flows in the opposite direction. False stories that first appear on obscure conservative news sites become fodder for Russian TV talk shows. Since the start of the Trump era, Russian channels regularly echo the U.S. president’s allegations about an American “deep state” and his depictions of the mainstream media as “fake news.”

The resulting muddle was highlighted by Putin himself, who, while standing next to President Trump during their July summit in Helsinki, seemed to distill the Kremlin’s approach to the news while responding to a question about Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

“As for who to believe, who you can’t believe, can you believe at all?” Putin mused, before answering his own questions: “You can’t believe anyone.”

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

A tale of two headlines at the CBC

Does CBC have a clickbait problem or a stealth editing problem or both?


CBC’s Breaking News says that a 2018 report suggests a violent act of terrorism may occur in the near future, and it reads very differently when shared on social media than it does on the actual site. 

The article focuses on a report by the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, which says that our national terrorism threat level has remained static since 2014. Now it’s at “medium.” This means that an act of terror may occur shortly. 

With the terror attack on Strasbourg yesterday, Canadians are rightly concerned about a similar occurrence on our own soil. 

The headline that appears when the article is shared on social media reads: “‘Violent act of terrorism could occur in Canada,’ says latest threat report.”

CBC swaps headlines for views

But when you arrive at the CBC website, you will see a much more feel-good message: “Government not expecting many more foreign fighters to return to Canada,” with a portion of the original headline demoted to the sub header.


CBC Social:

CBC Website:

So let’s break this down: our national security threat is currently at “medium” according to a brand new report. This is far from good news. But the report also states that this is an unchanged status. 

Why are there two different headlines? It’s possible that someone at CBC, wanted to write a headline that reflected the facts of the report. And later that same day, someone else from the CBC decided to go in, and change the accurate headline to spin doctor it so that it aligns with the progressive values of the Trudeau government. 

It’s also possible that CBC wanted a “scarier” headline for social media simply for the clicks. But one thing is clear to me after reading the article, the CBC seems more interested in focusing on the politically correct talking points than communicating the facts to the Canadian people. 


Stealthediting to control facts and conceal bias

Sure, radical extreme terrorism is a problem, but according to the report, the Trudeau government is focused on fighting the real enemies like “male supremacy” and “homophobia” in right wing extremism. 

It’s an odd talking point considering that Islamic terrorists are not exactly known for their feminism or LGBT advocacy. This mirrors the sickness that currently exists in society where words equate to violence, and violence is acceptable if it fits certain narratives.

Clickbaiting is a method to generate traffic by altering the truth of the matter to conjugate that moment a reader clicks a link, fires pixels, and generates ad revenue. In the case of the CBC headline(s) it nearly mirrors reverse clickbaiting, since there is more truth, albeit ominous, in the social media headline than there is in the headline on the official CBC page.  

Stealth editing is one way that the media controls narratives, manipulates facts, and conceals their own bias. At Real Clear Politics, Kalev Leetaru breaks it down: “In a journalistic age in which stealth editing has emerged from the shadows to become the accepted norm of our papers of record, web archives have become our last line of defense to hold journalism accountable when it attempts to quietly flush its errors down the Orwellian Memory Hole.”

No one managed to archive CBC’s headlines yesterday. So I suppose we will never know if CBC was stealth editing or clickbaiting. 


So why is CBC engaging in such sketchy activities? I can’t say for sure, but I can think of at least 600 million possible reasons


Edited by Jaydee

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

social engineering.  Knowing you are being sucked in is half the battle


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The usual double standard for the MSM...

Donald Trump Surprised Mika Brzezinski Not Banned for ‘Butt Boy’ Comment

President Donald Trump expressed his surprise that MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski was not permanently banned from television after describing Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as the president’s “butt boy.”

“If it was a Conservative that said what ‘crazed’ Mika Brzezinski stated on her show yesterday, using a certain horrible term, that person would be banned permanently from television,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “She will probably be given a pass, despite their terrible ratings.”

Brzezinski mocked Pompeo during her MSNBC Morning Joe show with Joe Scarborough’s, describing him as a “wannabe dictator’s butt-boy.”


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it might just be the hypocrisy, the whole “words matter” concept, the notion that had all of this been stood on its head, rancorous democrats would be hatching multi coloured kittens on the floor of CNN’s situation room.

Turn it completely on its head (in all respects), I bet there would be 24 hour news coverage of the issue…  that’s just a snowflake guess though. The concept of reality needs a whole new thread, some international news and a thoughtful alternative plan of action from Democratic leaders we can all support or at least consider. That is, was and continues to be AWOL

The concept of reality is an interesting one, she is a cruel mistress and doesn't care what you or I think, she is what she is. Reality doesn't care about competing opinions and she scoffs at alternate realities that try on her clothes only to look likes shapeless blobs. It's what makes military tactics so refreshing in todays world. The weather is reality and snow isn't racist... the terrain is reality and the topographic feature referred to as a saddle isn't sexist.... and the opposing forces are reality too regardless of their race or gender.  In short, the sun will rise in the east and set in the west even if doing so is deemed to be racist, sexist or homophobic by CNN. 

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree with your sentiment, it does show that calm rational debate and thinking no longer has a place in modern politics, or even society.

Thanks again to the internet for opening up that can of worms.

It also points out that the 'meat' of an argument can be deflected by simply expressing outrage over words.  The truth of the matter then gets ignored.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this