Trump Holds Press Conference And Asks Staff For Testimonials Of His Calm Demeanor

In a truly cringe-worthy moment, President Donald Trump called on staff at a press conference yesterday to attest to his being calm and measured in a controversial meeting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi described Trump as throwing a “temper tantrum.” I am perfectly willing to accept that the portrayal was unfair, but the solution was not to have awkward testimonials of five staffers lined up like a firing squad. It took seconds for media around the world to portray the event as an American version of an impromptu moment with “the Dear One.”

President Trump held the press conference in the Roosevelt Room in the White House to announce a $16 billion bailout for farmers. He then called on Kellyanne Conway, Hogan Gidley, Larry Kudlow, and others to publicly attest to his calm and controlled demeanor. Kudlow looked like his family was being held in a back room at gunpoint. It did not help that he is recovering from hip surgery but was hobbled out for the event.

I still do not understand why these missteps occur. However, part of the problem appears to be a lack of frank advice to the President who is looking at what may be an insurmountable challenge of over 50 percent of voters saying that they will not consider voting for him.

Trump again referred to himself as “an extremely stable genius” while referring to Pelosi as “crazy.” At the same time, Rudy Giuliani has retweeted a doctored clip of Pelosi to make her sound like she was having problems speaking.

This may play well with the base but the White House is rapidly alienating but it is having a clearly devastating impact on those key independent voters needed in the general election. What is weird is that the same result could have been achieved but simply getting these people out to the media instead of having what came across as forced public testimonials.

What do you think?

172 thoughts on “Trump Holds Press Conference And Asks Staff For Testimonials Of His Calm Demeanor”

  1. The mainstream media is not reporting the news; it is actively directing it.

    Over and over again, Democrats make false assertions that conservatives seem helpless to do anything about. You can’t fight a false narrative being blasted all over the globe.

    I frankly doubt that Neo Nazis and the KKK would have ever taken an interest in Trump if the media hadn’t kept lying that he was an anti-semite and a racist. Imagine, having a Jewish family and close friendship with the leader of Israel, being accused of being anti-semitic. The news septs insisting that he was, however, and they are therefor partly culpable in the pro-Trump/anti-Trump violent encounters that ensured. Were it not for the media, they would have dismissed Trump for having strong Jewish ties. The Trump carefully and with intent edits his statements, such as taking out the part where he condemned savage MS-13 rapists and murderers as animals, and made it sound like he was talking about all immigrants.

    How, we have the birth of another whopper. Pelosi claimed that Trump had a hysterical fit, which contributes to the narrative that he’s unstable. The media dutifully distributes the propaganda globally.

    So, what to do about it? You can’t just sit there. Perhaps he will have to videotape such meetings so he can play them back, without commnent, to the American people. It would be delicious if Pelosi wasn’t aware that there was video of the event, and then got flat footed with her lie. Trump must address lies, as taking the high road has gotten Republicans nowhere. Use Saul Alinsky’s methods against them, for a change. In any case, his response must be effective. A bad response is worse than none at all.

    The point is, conservatives have to fight the false narratives, but Democrats have the microphone. Democrats control the Internet, too, from Google searches, to Social Media, and YouTube.

    It’s time to find out, in the courts, if the Internet, Social Media, and YouTube, are the public square, or private clubs. I would be curious to see how this would be answered. Does Social Media and YouTube and GOOGLE have the right to censor our speech, and guide elections by controlling the information we have access to?

    The media also needs to be held accountable when they employ selective editing to completely change the narrative.

    Our goal is to give accurate information, good or bad, to voters.

  2. Whacking Pelosi hard as soon as possible is the most effective way to kick her story into the trash. Little of no pushback against Obama by a R Congress did not sit well with their base or Independents. Not pushing back quickly and hard lends credence to Pelosi’s spin and is not the way to go.

    1. Success!

      Number nine. Number nine. Number nine. Number nine . . .

  3. I think the President couldn’t win. The press lets Nancy Pelosi threaten “collateral damage” to those who don’t “share our views” without as much as a raised eyebrow, and accepts the river of lies she vomits up at face value.

    So, when she apparently exercised her license to lie once more, POTUS could either let her get away with it… or ask people who were there to say what really happened.

    Professor, I think you cringed at the President doing the only reasonable thing he could have done. If he had behaved nobly, as W. did after being lied about by John Kerry non-stop. the press would have let it pass without any recognition of his correct behavior.

  4. Meanwhile, Rep. Jerry Nadler has a faint spill & refuses medical attention from NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio.

    There’s some close-up footage of Nadler that shows this wasn’t “dehydration” or being “overheated” as is always claimed whenever a public figure has a health issue. He appeared to have had a mini stroke or a seizure.

    Here’s the video. As JT would say….What do you think?

      1. They stopped the news conference and the various entourages there made a point to interpose themselves between him and the camera (and at the end tried to shoo the photographer away). You could tell at the beginning that he was disoriented.

      2. Mespo,
        Nadler is 5’4″ and weighed 320 lbs. before surgery about 15 years ago.
        In his case, the risk/reward factors probably favored having the surgery, but there are still both short-term term and long-term consequences associated with bariatric surgery.
        Low blood sugar is one of the possibilities that might account for Nadler’s collapse. We’ll probably never know exactly what happened to cause his collapse, because understating the significance of a medical issue is the standard method of “explaining away” incidents like this.

        1. I seem to recall serial attacks of ‘dehydration’ bedeviling Janet Reno. She actually had Parkinson’s.

      3. The noose is tightening on the co-conspirators in the Obama Coup D’etat in America.

        “Desperate times call for desperate measures.”

        – Hippocrates

    1. I hope they took him straight to the hospital. If it was a mini stroke, time is of the essence. Getting treatment within a half an hour gives the best results. Hopefully he’ll be okay and recover soon.



    There is something about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that allows her to unnerve President Trump as seemingly no one else can.

    “I pray for the president of the United States,” she said on Thursday. “I wish that his family or his administration or his staff would have an intervention for the good of the country. Maybe he wants to take a leave of absence.”

    The proof that she had hit the giant bull’s eye of Trump’s insecurities was his response: “I am an extremely stable genius.”

    Exchanging insults with Trump is not an endeavor that is normally productive, as many others who tried it have found. But Pelosi is a dangerous foil for a president who operates on impulse and outburst. While Trump succeeds in making everyone else around him dizzy, Pelosi’s unique talent is an ability to keep her focus on the endgame.

    Her current goal is to assure that the president vacates the Oval Office, as swiftly and as surely as possible.

    That means Pelosi must do two things at once: Keep Trump off balance, and restrain those within her Democratic caucus who are urging a precipitous drive toward impeachment.

    Pelosi knows that unless and until there is overwhelming, bipartisan support for such an effort, it will end with Trump’s acquittal in the Senate. And that would only help him win another four years in office. “He wants to be impeached so he can be exonerated by the Senate,” she told top Democrats in a private meeting. “His actions are villainous to the Constitution of the United States.”

    Edited from: “Pelosi Is A Dangerous Foil For A President Who Operates On Impulse”

    This evening’s Washington Post

    1. This piece caught my eye because the columnist, Karen Timulty, is a moderate conservative. And it seems darkly humorous that she fears Pelosi could drive Trump ballistic.

      When the president’s temper tantrums are so common that columnists fear the House Speaker might set him off, that’s a strange situation.

        1. David Brooks, the New York Times “conservative”? 😄😂🤣

        2. Tabby, I read The Post each day and see many columns by Timulty. She never struck me as a liberal. And I doubt, very much, that I would form that impression if indeed Timulty ‘was’ a liberal.

          If Timulty strikes ‘you’ as a liberal, that only means you’re stuck in the right wing bubble.

          1. Peter, let me explain something to you. Political terminology is conventional. If you use it in idiosyncratic ways, you’re talking to your navel, not to anyone else. If Tumulty’s actual views were ‘moderate conservative’, she’d write stories as if she were making certain assumptions and asking certain questions. Questions such as,

            1. What is the effect of this measure on someone’s economic decision-making? Is it right that his decision-making be impaired or subject to manipulation? Is his property more secure or less secure for this measure?

            2. What is the effect of this measure on this person’s domestic life? Does it render that life more orderly or less orderly? Should it?

            3. Is it so that this subject is presumed to have personal agency? Is their any dispensation from full responsibility for his acts? Should there be?

            4. What are the costs as well as the benefits of this measure?

            5. To whom is this person loyal? To whom should they be?

            6. Who am I, and who is he? What is my social function in relation to him? What is any other subject of this piece?

            7. Is this understanding of rights and obligations conventional or novel? Can a novel understanding be justified?

            8. Who are these people? How do they succeed and fail, in their objects and in their moral sense?

            I would be extremely surprised if you could find more than one Tumulty piece in 50 where these questions are explicit or implicit.

            1. Tabby, this reads like a page from some ‘great’ Libertarian book.

              Perhaps Libertarian fundamentalists like yourself keep this list taped to their refrigerators and, or, bathroom mirrors.

              Alan copied this list onto heavy parchment that’s burned at the corners for solemn effect. Alan keeps it like a doily beneath his bust of Thomas Sowell on a round table in the corner lit by a spotlight.

              1. Those aren’t libertarian principles at all, Peter. No more paint chips for you.

            2. where these questions are explicit or implicit.

              You need to break it down to street talk for that one troll. As evidenced with his petulance and TDS on these forums his cerebral cortex, though doubtfully ever fully developed, has sustained organic brain damage from all of the crystal meth David Brock feeds him as wages for trolling these forums

              He is better called Petulant Peter

    2. Pelosi is a dangerous foil? What a load of hoo-ha from the ya-ya sisterhood. You make me laugh.

    1. One of the theories behind prosecuting Assange for soliciting the leaks from Manning has already been rejected by Mueller as that theory is applied to Julian Assange, but that same theory has also been rejected by both Mueller and AG Barr when that theory is applied Candidate Trump and members or associates of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.

      Here’s the first part that Mueller declined to prosecute: Assange offered a reward for Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speeches that led directly to The GRU hacking John Podesta’s Gmail account and the exfiltration of roughly 60,000 emails–including transcripts for Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speeches that Wikileaks then published. BTW, those hacks on Podesta’s Gmail account were the same hacks that led to the Podesta emails that Wikileaks published in October of 2016 and that Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi had been attempting to solicit from Assange since late July and early August of 2016.

      Now here’s the second part that both Mueller and AG Barr declined to prosecute: At a press conference on July 27th, 2016, Candidate Trump made his infamous “Russia if you’re listening . . .” remark. While Trump claims that he was joking, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn claims that Trump was in earnest and had asked Flynn to get Hillary’s 33,000 deleted emails. Other member and associate of the Trump campaign have testified that Candidate Trump was sorely disappointed that Hillary’s deleted emails had not yet been found. And yet, The GRU hacked Clinton’s campaign office email servers within hours of Trump’s open solicitation of Hillary’s deleted emails.

      So the Trump Justice Dep’t has indicted Assange for something that Mueller declined to prosecute against Assange as well as something that both Mueller and AG Barr declined to prosecute against Trump, himself, and any other members or associates of the Trump campaign. Now, before you all freak out completely and totally, it will be readily admitted that Assange solicited the leak of classified information from Manning. Whereas, none of Podesta’s hacked emails appear to have been classified information. So there is that difference. Even so, the theory of solicitation of leaking and hacking implicit to the most recent indictment of Assange is essentially the same theory that has already been rejected in the case thousands of emails damaging to Hillary Clinton.

      Contributed by The L4D–Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition–Project

  6. Trump(in Japan):“They’ll be able to see how this hoax, how this witch hunt started, why it started. It was an attempted coup or an attempted takedown of the President of the United States.”

    No amount of hysterics from the dems can stop what’s coming. Anticipation is making me wait.

    1. Notice how quiet Pelosi and Nadler have been today?

      There are reasons for that. I suspect Pelosi is heavily medicated today either with prescription meds, alcohol or all of the above. Trump has kicked her arse with how he went after her jugular. Given her silence today she is suffering severe butt hurt

      Nadler is in a hurt of trouble

      I think Trump might very well be attending their funerals in the near future assuming they can find a casket for Nadler

    2. “And I hope he looks at the U.K., and I hope he looks at Australia, and I hope he looks at Ukraine. I hope he looks at everything, because there was a hoax that was perpetrated on our country,” Trump told reporters of Barr.

      That’s my President. Go get’em Barr. He’s talking about all the details and individuals we already know from those countries.

  7. “I am an extremely stable genius.” -Donald Trump, 45th U.S. President

    “…grab them by the pussy” -Donald Trump, 45th U.S. President

    Pretty much says it all.

    1. “Anonymous” has a good idea for the 2020 Democratic platform….. “That pretty much says it all”, and since that says it ALL, there’s no need to really campaign on anything else.

  8. This is what makes the current situation so crazy. Trump, let alone Attorney General William Barr or McGahn, isn’t the one stopping Congress from pursuing impeachment. They have no control over it whatsoever. Impeachment is entirely a matter for the House, which is entirely under the control of Pelosi.

    She, not the president, is “obstructing” an impeachment inquiry in the literal sense of not letting one go forward, despite many of her members wanting one and despite the Trump DOJ handing her a potential road map in the form of the 448-page report.

    If this is a cover-up, it is the worst executed cover-up of all time.

  9. Who is wacky or more wacky than the other: Trump or Pelosi? How old is she? She acts like she is 80. Is she close?

    1. I see spots on the wall and I think Nancy is the one who flung foo and not Trump.

  10. Turley wrote, “I still do not understand why these missteps occur.”

    I still don’t understand why Turley focuses on smallest misstep while completely and totally overlooking the ginormous faux pas committed by President Bozo Boots. Trump just made a public statement naming various people whom Trump presumes to be guilty of treason and, therefore, according to Trump, subject to the death penalty.

    There’s no way that anyone whom Durham might someday indict will ever get a fair trial anywhere in America when the sitting President [who cannot be indicted while in office for anything] has already named specific individuals whom The President presumes to be guilty of treason and, therefore, subject to the death penalty. Can you say “prejudicial,” Professor Turley? Do you know what prejudicial means, Professor Turley?

    Presumably the Attorney General of the United States is supposed to know that you do not presume people to be guilty of treason roughly a week after you announced the beginning of an investigation into the alleged conduct of those people, which was said to be “spying”–not Treason–and it wasn’t even stated that the spying was presumed to have been “illegal,” just suspicious and possibly “inappropriate.”

    Well, well, well . . . So much for the presumption of innocence. Trump has decreed that there were treasonous people who tried to take him down and, by God, they are going to pay for it with their lives. And Turley’s worried about Larry Kudlow having to vouch for Trump’s sanity whilst hobbling on crutches. Wake up, Turley. Snap out of it, Turley. Start paying attention to what’s going on around here, Turley.

    Contributed by The L4D–And All Of This Just To Avoid Turning Over His Tax Returns???–Project

    1. Why would any authentic progressive defend the three letter agencies. Their entire respective historieshistories turned them into criminal well before bad orange person arrived.

      1. “Why would any authentic progressive defend the three letter agencies. ”


      2. Listen up, Newbie Pamby: Neither Lynette Squeaky Fromme nor John Hinkley were ever charged with Treason let alone subjected to the death penalty for having fired a shot at President Ford, in the first instance, and having actually wounded President Reagan and killed a Secret Service agent, in the second case. Those were actual instances of people trying to take down The President of the United States. And neither of those assassination attempts were ever charged as Treason nor were either of those would-be assassins executed.

        The President of the United States is neither The Sovereign of the United States nor a State thereof. Nobody currently under investigation for having supposedly “spied” on Candidate Trump before he took the Oath of Office has fired a shot at Trump, wounded Trump, killed any Secret Service agent nor otherwise attempted to assassinate Trump. Opening a counter-intelligence investigation into the efforts of a foreign government to cultivate and recruit members and associates of a campaign for President is not an overt act of war against the United States nor a State thereof. Moreover, the sworn law enforcement officers who opened and conducted that counter-intelligence investigation are not “enemies of the United States.” To the contrary, they are sworn law-enforcement agents of the United States.

        Have you ever stopped to ask yourself a few simple questions, Newbie Pamby? If the three-letter agencies of the United States had been truly interested in “spying on the Trump campaign,” then why didn’t they find out about the June 9th, 2016, Trump Tower meeting on June 6th, 2016, when Rob Goldstone sent an email to Donald Trump Jr. offering to set up that meeting? Likewise, why didn’t these deep-state spies find out about the letter of intent to build a Trump Tower Moscow so soon as the ink dried on Trump’s signature? Or, for that matter, why didn’t they already know that that letter of intent was not withdrawn until after the 2016 election?

        You people need your perceived enemies to be exactly as incompetent as you also need them to be supposedly malevolent. Because it never occurs to you people that you people, yourselves, are exactly as malevolent as you are quite literally incompetent. And that is a most pitiable combination of character traits to possess.

        Contributed by The L4D–Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition–Project

        1. It’s news that a Secret Service agent was killed in the 1981 assassination attempt on Reagan.
          They covered that up well, and this is a stunning discovery made nearly 40 years after the fact.

          1. From the Wikipedia entry:

            Besides Reagan, White House Press Secretary James Brady, Secret Service agent Tim McCarthy, and police officer Thomas Delahanty were also wounded. All three survived, but Brady suffered brain damage and was permanently disabled; Brady’s death in 2014 was considered homicide because it was ultimately caused by this injury.

            [end excerpt]

            Nice catch, you flying fact-checker, you. I was wondering what it might take to distract you from your ongoing skirmishes with Anon. Now I know. You’ll have to stay on your toes all the live long day. I could get anything wrong at any time on any day.

            Although, I truly mis-thought that Special Agent McCarthy had died from his wounds. Late4Dinner

      3. Pam Ryan says: May 24, 2019 at 5:12 PM

        “Why would any authentic progressive defend the three letter agencies. Their entire respective historieshistories turned them into criminal well before bad orange person arrived.”

        Why would any “authentic progressive” defend “bad orange person”??? His entire history is crooked through and through. Besides, why the facile assumption that L4D is somehow under some sort of an obligation to be “an authentic progressive”???

        P. S. Your muppets have impaired your intellect–Late4Dinner

  11. Is Nancy having problems with her speech recently? Clearly. Did she hold up two fingers while saying “three?” Absolutely. Did Hillary pass out and get dragged into a van? Obviously. TDS is a serious disease. Talk to your doctor.

    1. Talk to your doctor

      TDS is not covered by Obamacare

      One of the many ominous signs of progression of TDS is to state videos of Nancy Pelosi demonstrating tremors and chorea movements are “distorted”, “manipulated”, “doctored”

      Seeing is believing in medicine. When a patient stammers, has absence seizures “spacing out”, intention tremors, smacking of lips and flailing arms, to mention a few, these are not good signs particularly when you are nearly 80. Denying these signs are worsening TDS progression

      Isn’t that right Trolls?

      absence seizure @0:39

      1. the child is asked after the seizure what had happened.
        Patients do not realize they had an absence seizure but once it occurs, they feel confused immediately afterwards…just like Pelosi during her press conferences

        Pelosi is probably medicated for her absence seizures to lessen their gravity

    2. Intention Tremor

      Pelosi has been having these for years. Predictably the liberal news media doesn’t discuss these but they are observable to an untrained eye

    3. “Murry Mckrystal✌….no ummm…🖖oh yeah Happy…um…um…er☝️…Thank-o-weenial 👋day weekly endured🎂🍸🍸🍹🍷🥂🍻🍺.”
      – Pelosi

    1. “Manipulated videos of Speaker Nancy Pelosi that made it seem as if she were repeatedly stumbling and slurring her words spread across social media on Thursday, as tensions escalated between President Trump and the Democratic leader.

      “One of the videos, which showed Ms. Pelosi speaking at a conference this week, was slowed down to make her speech appear continually garbled. The video has been viewed millions of times on Facebook and was amplified by the president’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, who shared the video Thursday night on Twitter. “What is wrong with Nancy Pelosi?” Mr. Giuliani said in a tweet that has since been deleted. “Her speech pattern is bizarre.”

      “Mr. Trump tweeted a separate video of Ms. Pelosi, from Fox Business, which spliced together moments from a 20-minute news conference to emphasize points where she had stumbled on her words. “PELOSI STAMMERS THROUGH NEWS CONFERENCE,” the president tweeted.

      1. There is something wrong with Nancy Pelosi. Slowing down her speech to accentuate her difficulties wasn’t fair, or necessary. There is no reason to be cruel about it if it’s a medical difficulty. There are a great many unedited videos showing her losing the plot of the conversation, stammering, and getting facts mixed up.

        Since dementia now impacts 1 in every 3 people over age 75, annual mental acuity tests should be administered to all politicians, and judges, and many other positions. The pass/fail results should be released to the public for politicians. This applies not only to the President, but everyone in Congress, as well.

        I must say that she surprised me with her strength when she rallied against AOC.

        1. Also, there are many videos that string together clips of her past troubles. They are described as such, and these stumbles did actually happen. Listening to them all together strikes home how often she has such difficulties.

          Frankly, she has no moral high ground to stand on, with her repeated unfounded comments about collusion with Russia, and a coverup. She lies all day long about conservatives in general, and Trump specifically. Now she’s a victim because mistakes she’s made are on video?

          Slowing down the video emphasized her problems with speech. You can really hear how she forms words at this time. It wasn’t nice, however, and wasn’t necessary. It can give the false impression that this is the speed at which she normally talks.

          On the other hand, videos that string together problems with her speech, to show the quantity of episodes, are useful in that they show the scope of the problem. I did not take issue with all the videos showing how many times Trump mentioned “China” on the campaign trail.

        2. Karen S writes:

          “Since dementia now impacts 1 in every 3 people over age 75, annual mental acuity tests should be administered to all politicians, and judges, and many other positions.”

          Let’s test everyone, starting with Karen S. Toss in an IQ test for good measure.

          1. Anon – you do realize, of course, that ad hominem is the resort of people with nothing useful or intelligent to say? When you’ve got nothing to add, insult!

            1. “…ad hominem is the resort of people with nothing useful or intelligent to say? ”

              …but not always.

            2. Your post, based on a faked video, are self revealing and except for the brain dead Trumpsters – most on this board, no doubt -, require no further comment.

              1. Anon – there were two videos. One slowed down her speech so that you can hear distinctly how she forms words. She does softly slur her words, which is easier to hear when the speed is slowed down. However, that, of course, is not her normal speed of speech. There is a second video which contains clips of some of the times she has stumbled, gotten confused, or made mistakes. It does not even contain the real jumbles she has made of facts.

                The mainstream media does this frequently on many topics. For instance, they show clip compilations of some of the most shocking or outrageous things that Trump has said.

                It is fine, of course, to compile compilations of Trump, but not for Pelosi.

                The trouble is not with my own discernment, Anon, but rather with the suspension of your own ethics and critical thinking.

                The real issue is if selective editing changes the message. In the case of the slowed down video, while it did allow viewers to listen more closely to her speech patterns, it gave a false impression that it was her normal speaking speed. When someone is trying to make out a word that is difficult to hear, audio is often slowed down to clarify. It is not a controversial practice. However, it needs to be properly identified as edited to a slower speed. I am not aware of any other editing technique used on that video, other than slowing the speed. If a technique was used to actually alter her speech, then it would be fraudulent. When the video is sped back up to a normal rate, you can still hear a soft slurring to her words. It’s common as people grow older. I found the slower video problematic. Older people softly slur their words. Slowing down a video to emphasize that fact seems cruel. A slur to the words may have nothing to do with cognitive ability. It’s the compilation video that gave more information on possible difficulties she may be having.

                The other video strung together various trouble speaking, so that the viewer would have a perception of how often it happens. For clarity, it would be best if links to each video sourced, in its entirety, should be provided.

                As to your continued use of ad hominem, really, Anon, it gives the impression that you are unequal to the task of simply having a mature conversation. Stop letting your petty politics get in the way of your critical reasoning.

                As I’ve stated before, there is no need to be cruel to Nancy Pelosi if she is suffering from a medical problem. Her difficulties speaking, and mixing up facts, have been well documented. Since she holds more power than most Americans, it would be in our best interests to administer a cognitive impairment test to everyone in such powerful positions, annually. It’s like the driving test for seniors.

      1. Yep. That “collateral damage” statement needs to haunt her. If Trump said that about the Left, it would be on a loop on every major mainstream news channel.

        The news is very dutiful to Democrats.

        If Nancy Pelosi took Anthropogenic Climate Change seriously, she would stop flying on jets, give the land of her winery away, and the elites would sell their beachfront properties. Who needs wine if the world will end in 12 years due to climate change?

        Actions speak louder than words.

Comments are closed.