This is Part I of “Chem Trails Exposed On Discovery Channel”. This has been discussed some on this website before by readers. One of those readers sent in the link to this video. What cha think?

Update: More videos on this subject found here.

Tom Remington

It would be naive to think that no president ever considered his appointments to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court as a way to help protect or promote his ideals. How far is a president willing to go to intentionally attempt to manipulate the system in order to achieve personal agendas?

When Senator Barack Hussein Obama was a candidate for president of the United States, I spent a great deal of time writing about his history when it comes to Second Amendment issues. This also included multiple articles on the most prominent Second Amendment case the Supreme Court ruled on in recent history – District of Columbia vs. Heller.

Over seven months ago I brought you a story that got very little attention and few people know about even today. Perhaps it is time to revive that story a bit.

From 1994-2002 Obama was director of an organization called the Joyce Foundation. It’s aim was the destruction of the Second Amendment. This foundation, led by Barack Obama, tried to manipulated the courts, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court by stuffing the law review libraries in several prominent law schools.

At the Supreme Court level, we know there are very few prior cases that deal with the Second Amendment. After all, it took well over 200 years before the court would finally make a ruling on whether the Second Amendment actually did guarantee individual citizens the right to keep and bear arms. (District of Columbia vs. Heller)

It is known that all stewards of the law have to rely on past cases in presenting an argument as do judges in rendering decisions. If there is no actual case history, often lawyers and judges will refer to articles written at law school review libraries. These articles carry some weight because they are accepted and approved before being published.

It was Obama’s contention and that of the Joyce Foundation that if they stuffed enough anti-Second Amendment law review articles into college libraries, this would help sway the courts to render decisions against the Second Amendment. Class act wouldn’t you say.

As they say, there’s more than one way to skin a cat. We now wonder how Obama will achieve what many of us already know – his desire to rid the country of guns and destroy the Second Amendment.

We know since becoming president he has tried to reduce the availability of ammunition. He was unsuccessful in ordering all military spent brass, used by companies to reload and resell, destroyed and rendered useless.

We also know that when Obama traveled to Mexico recently, he told leaders he would encourage his Congress to ratify CIFTA – a global treaty former assault-weapons-banner-in-chief, Bill Clinton, tried to get passed. This treaty would submit U.S. citizens under the power of a U.N. entity that would take away our guns.

We can feel quite confident that Obama will find any means necessary to take our guns. (laugh if you want to). He is not afraid of slimy court manipulations and fraud to influence the courts nor is he shy about bringing in outside gangs to help him with his agenda.

So, with all this said, can we begin to think that just maybe Obama is using an anti-gun Sonia Sotomayor as another game piece to achieve his ends? For those who care enough to learn, we have come to realize that Sotomayer is about as anti-Second Amendment as they come. Consider this.

Six months after Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in upholding the belief that the Second Amendment was a guaranteed individual right, given to us by God and not allowed by the Constitution, Federal Appeals Court judge Sonia Sotomayor completely disregarded District of Columbia vs Heller.

In Maloney vs. Cuomo, she ruled that the Second Amendment had nothing to do with individual rights nor did the federal government have any say in the matter. She claimed the states had the right to make any gun banning laws they wanted regardless of what the Second Amendment said (my words not hers).

Of course I have no idea where gun banning sits on Obama’s priority list. Does anyone? But we know it is there. He stated clearly that he wanted an “empathetic” justice who could rule by having a better understanding of the way things are in our country today, and it appears he found one of those. If gun banning is second, third or lower on Obama’s wish list of rights to take away in order to achieve his fascists regime, picking Sotomayor may have been just another bonus feather in his cap – kind of a two or more for the price of one.

Obama is a big enough narcissist that he believes, like back in the Joyce Foundation days, he can manipulate even the United States Supreme Court in order to fulfill his fascist agenda.

Tom Remington

For more information about Gary Marbut’s book, Gun Laws of Montana, visit this site.

Reader Sam provided us with this link. Thank you!

Caution: You are about to enter a reality zone. It is graphic but real. For those who have no idea what Mother Nature is like, this may come as a real shock for you.

Take notice of the dog’s first and what appears only selection of the finest morsels and from whence they cometh.

Tom Remington

I would suppose that it is time to cut to the chase on this issue of Maine’s deer management problems. There are some cold and hard facts that have to be acted upon. Maine can no longer keep doing what it’s doing. It’s just not working very well is it? We can’t sit back and wait for the weather to break.

In Part IIIof, “Does Maine Have a Deer Management Problem?”, I promised that I would return to Part IV with a list of things that we, as hunters, can do to help replenish our deer herds in places where they need the attention. I apologize for taking so long on this but I have written and rewritten this article far too many times, each time closing out my browser and walking away because I knew I was going to incite too many people to anger. Part of what has encouraged me to rewrite it one more time, came from a reader who told me people were waiting for some help. I appreciate the support and the encouragement.

Briefly, Part I we looked into reports that there were far fewer trophy bucks being registered in the State of Maine. Part II, we tried to determine if the deer herd was healthy and in Part III I put together some data in order to verify that MDIFW’s assessment that the reduction in trophy deer registrations mirrored the reduction in harvest numbers. I also began looking at what the causes are that affect deer populations.

According to information supplied to us hunters, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife tells us that they have population density management goals. These density goals are determined in a number of ways but in layman’s terms it has to do with the number of deer a piece of land can support. But that’s not the only thing.

In Part III, Lee Kantar, MDIFW’s head deer and moose biologist, had this to say when offering information about how management objectives affect deer densities and populations.

“In addition deer mgt objectives (set by the public) changed in 1999 from growing deer to maintaining levels at 15-20 per square mile in order to reduce negative impacts of deer including risk of lyme disease, car-vehicle collisions, and overbrowsing of ornamentals, etc…”

Absent from that assessment was management based on sustainable deer harvest. There once was a day when it was the job of fish and game to manage game animals for sustainable harvest. That means they managed deer, bear, moose, fox, marten, mink, all animals considered to be game, in numbers that allowed for the citizens of the state of Maine to harvest these animals for personal use, i.e. food, furs, etc. That has since been yanked away from us as is proof in that one statement.

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife cannot “manage” the game animals for sustainable harvest when that is not their goal. It has more become their goal to cow-tow to the animal rights and anti hunting groups because they are more afraid of them than those of us who pay the bills that keep them employed. For Maine to salvage a hunting and trapping future, this has to stop.

According to Kantar’s statement, deer management objectives are set by the public, not the hunters, not those who have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars over several decades, but the public. This is Joe who lives on East Overstreet who just planted some pretty new shrubs and he don’t want the deer eating them up. This comes from the insurance companies who complain about having to pay out claims on people who drive like idiots, zooming past deer and moose crossing signs.

Do you see the problem with all this? Those putting all the demands on MDIFW, and getting what they want I might add, are those who don’t play a bloody nickel.

We hear all this big talk from MDIFW, from the governor’s office and others about how hunting, trapping and fishing are big business in Maine. They boast about the millions of dollars annually these “sports and recreations” bring into the state and they sure have an odd way of showing that appreciation.

The State of Maine, which is not Augusta, it’s not Danny Martin, it’s not Gov. Baldacci. It’s you and me. We have to make a decision. Either we want Maine to use our investment money to provide hunting and trapping opportunities or we keep digging in and providing the livelihood for those who want to take your’s away.

I get press releases from the MDIFW on a regular basis. Over the course of a year, the overwhelming majority of those releases have nothing to do with money and effort being put into deer harvest issues. And we wonder why there are no deer left in Northern Maine.

With all due respect to all those who have served on another one of Gov. Baldacci’s “working groups”, what have these groups accomplished, Mr. Governor? Are we better off today having had a group of people sit down and determine there aren’t any deer left in places we knew there weren’t any deer before they met? A mandated predator control group essentially told us we have predators. Learn to live with them. Please give me that authority.

Hunters, trappers and fishermen, it’s time to step up to the plate and either demand that your investment money be put into managing deer and other game for sustainable harvest or stop paying their way. I think if someone who knows, if there is anyone, exactly how many pennies for every dollar you spend for your license got spent on deer management, you’d laugh and then cry. You and I pay for a license that we think will permit us to bag a deer. What we are really doing is giving MDIFW our money so that they can spend it on countless non-game activities. Is that what you want?

Let’s go back to where I made the statement that Maine needed to begin acting like the economic advantages coming to the state from hunting was a viable industry. Talk is cheap. As long as the next governor and the governor after that, etc., can spout off about the millions of dollars hunting brings to the state, while ignoring the facts that hunting license sales are down, deer populations are dropping, more and more hunters are distraught and fed up with fish and game, nothing will get done. You can’t correct a problem if you’re not willing to admit there is one. Another side of that argument is you have to have something you believe is worth fighting for.

The first thing our governor, along with every employee at MDIFW, every state senator and every representative need to do is publicly aver that the state supports and will promote hunting and trapping as not only a respected and traditional means of sport but also a viable and a sustainable and renewable resource. That’s the easy part. The difficult part is to stand up to that belief and act like you mean it. If that were a possibility, then taking care of the deer shortage problem might come easier than we think.

For those of you familiar with me and my writings, you know I despise the interference of government but this is different. It is the government of the state of Maine that has laid claim to all the wild animals within its borders. They are the entity that claims responsibility for managing those animals, creating hunting and trapping seasons and the laws that regulate our hunting and fishing. We have few options.

They are also the entity the animal rights activists and anti-hunting groups seek out to sue. When the lawsuits begin and our government is willing to concede to their wishes, what future is there for us. With each concession hunting dies another death. The only variable here is at what rate of speed will the concessions come that eventually kills it altogether? Either the Maine government believes in hunting and will support it or they won’t. Would they act the same way if this involved stopping the tourism business or pulp and paper industry?

If we should dare suppose that our government believed in and supported hunting and was willing to do all the necessary things to better manage its deer population, then we could proceed. We should never want our government to bully landowners. We have to have the deepest respect for all landowners, even those we want to hate because they close off their land to us. In time they will come around once they see the benefits wildlife management brings them.

Let’s address the things we can change. We first must readily admit that we have a predator problem. For reasons unbeknown to me, Maine still seems reluctant to admit we have too many coyotes and in places too many bear, the two largest predators of deer.

While the deer population in Northern Maine suffers, doesn’t it make sense to increase the bear harvest in order to help reduce predation by bears on deer? If there are not enough bear to sustain a population then there shouldn’t be a predation problem for deer. While Northern Maine suffers economically because of the downturn in deer hunting, it would be a small economic kick to extend or find creative ways to provide more hunting opportunities for bear. When the deer population recovers, then if necessary back off on the number of bears taken.

This may also hold true with moose. Although moose may not be directly connected to a downturn in deer populations in Northern Maine, changing goals to reflect a management of moose densities on the low end in order to 1.) provide more hunting opportunities, and 2.) once again help out the fine businesses in that part of the state who are going to suffer with a dismal deer hunting season, could help out.

The key to all of this is for the state to have the determination that it will do whatever it deems necessary to protect the hunting industry. They have to. Having said that, then we can address the coyote problem.

The first thing we need to do is make sure that every Maine resident understands that the coyote is a varmint, that there are thousands of them, that there are far too many and that they are destroying populations of other wildlife. They need to help out and kill as many as they can.

Hunters need to take up the chase as well. There is nothing any worse than listening to a hunter bitch and complain about those damned coyotes and he or she has done absolutely nothing to get rid of them. Oh, the animal rights groups will cry and they’ll start telling everybody we’re going to eradicate the Maine woods of coyotes – those beautiful, harmless creatures of God. That’s what they do. It’s time we do what we do and tell them where to get off.

MDIFW and the state need to make every provision for killing coyote. Year round hunting, trapping, baiting, calling, use of dogs and if necessary aerial gunning. Yes, I said aerial gunning. It’s done in other states and the states are the one’s who believe in the necessity of controlling predators as part of wildlife management. They have to in order to protect existing game animals. Aerial gunning is expensive but can be very effective depending on terrain, etc. Hunters would love to see their money being spent on programs that directly benefit them.

Winters in Maine can be harsh. We’ve always had harsh winters and deer have struggled but survived. Yes, some things have changed and some of those things we can’t do much about. What we can do is come up with other ways to counter those uncontrollables.

In places where the winters are the worst and deer populations are at their lowest, perhaps it is time to begin a winter emergency feeding programs. Yes, we will here all the reasons why we shouldn’t be feeding deer but let me ask you this. How’s that Northern Maine deer management program you got in place right now working out for you? I thought so.

This isn’t a new idea. Idaho has an emergency winter feeding program for their elk, mule deer and whitetail. They’ve devised a system that when certain weather conditions are met, emergency feeding kicks in. This began several years ago when hunters agreed to paying and extra buck or two in a license fee that went into an emergency feeding program account. With that money feed is bought each year as needed and is stored in designated places throughout the state – sometimes people would volunteer a barn, etc.

When weather got to as certain condition, volunteers would begin feeding. Of course this is not going to save all the deer but at the rate we’re going saving a handful might be just enough while we hope and pray for a couple or three relatively mild winters to help matters.

In the Idaho program, once a predetermined monetary level was achieved in the account, a percentage of the added license fee was also used for habitat restoration. This is good because we all understand that without proper habitat, all the other efforts are futile.

This money is off limits to anyone and everyone except to be used for emergency feeding and habitat restoration. It would be imperative that this program not be administered strictly by MDIFW. It will never work. There must be good representation from several entities, including the MDIFW. With the expertise of MDIFW the right strategic feeding places could be determined to best compliment the deer herd. Wouldn’t it be better to control and regulate the deer feeding than complain that people might not be doing it right?

Those of us who fork over the money for a hunting license are the ones who wield the most power. We just don’t know it nor are we organized enough to do anything about it. The truth is we can’t keep on keeping on. Something has to change and if we wait for our government, which seems to be the trend these days, not only will we have a long wait but they’ll surely screw it all up.

The ultimate ace up our sleeve, that I hope never has to happen, is that if MDIFW and the state’s government refuses to look after our interests, then we organize and stop paying license fees. It would take only one season to put them out of business. It’s time they began listening to the hunters and not the general public, which also includes the small handful of very loud animal rights people. They’ve had their way long enough. Time for us to take it back.

I’ve provided some suggestions and ideas of what we can do. There are others and I know there are far more intelligent and creative minds out there than mine who can devise ways to resolve this problem. I might add that fighting with MDIFW isn’t going to work either. We need not fight with them only to gently remind them of why they have their jobs and who controls the purse strings. yes, we all know of individuals at MDIFW who espouse more to non-game programs and I’d wager a guess some might even be anti-hunting, but there are some good people there who are as frustrated as we are. We need to get their attention…….seriously!

It’s kind of like the mule the old farmer had. Before he could get him to do any work, he had to nail him between the eyes with a baseball bat in order to get his attention. Time to pick up a baseball bat and get ready.

Tom Remington

Political correctness is nothing more than censorship. It puts restrictions on what we can and cannot do and say. Many believe in our attempt to be politically correct we have taken it to an extreme. My question today is this. Have we taken it to such an extreme we are putting ourselves, our culture, our strength and ability to survive as the greatest nation on earth at risk?

I mostly began asking myself this question during the 2008 presidential campaign when I heard over and over, that we needed to elect our first black person to be president of the United States as well maybe the first female president. I have no problem with that and I hope you don’t either. But did we elect our first black person president for that reason only? Probably not but intelligent thought can tell us that it is likely that a certain number of voters cast their ballots only because Barack Obama is considered black.

Have we become somewhat obsessed with the idea that making historic firsts involving race and gender are more important than finding the best qualified person to do the job at hand?

Some people believe that every aspect of our lives should be a reflection of our society. Well, it is to some degree and there is certainly nothing wrong with working toward a better understanding of social and ethnic differences. We have worked hard over the years to find ways of mixing and matching and integrating races, as well as attempts to educate our citizens to the diversity in culture that other people were once a part of. Does there come a time when striving so hard to create diversity in race and culture become a danger to our own society?

Just yesterday, President Obama announced that he would like to see Sonia Sotomayor sit on the bench of the United States Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice David Souter. Is she the best candidate for the job? Is she the most qualified? Did Obama pick her because she was a woman or that she was Hispanic?

Again, when discussions prior to Obama’s selection focused on who the president might pick, many said it was time that the first Hispanic sat on the court. I don’t have a problem with that. Some even went so far as to say it should be an Hispanic woman. I also don’t have a problem with that. History would be served if the appointee was of Hispanic decent they said.

When you take your car to the repair shop, let’s say for a brake job. Do you want the best person qualified to fix your brakes? It could save your life or are you more concerned whether the mechanic works at a firm that is racially and ethnically diverse? Maybe you never thought about it.

When your kids start school and they get on the school bus, are you concerned about who is driving your kid to school? Do you want a good, safe driver, well trained and not a child molester driving your kid to school? Or would you be more interested in making sure that all bus drivers have racial and ethnic representation? The same can be asked about teachers.

One day you learn that you have a brain tumor and the only hope of survival is surgery. Do you want the best surgeon around or are you more interested in whether or not brain surgeons are well represented racially and ethnically?

Recently in Hartford, Connecticut, firemen took an exam hoping for a promotion. After the exam, it was determined that it was mostly whites who scored high on the exam and that there wasn’t a good enough representation of race and ethnicity in the high scores, so the test was throw out. A lawsuit ensued and when the case reached the Second Federal Court of Appeals, the decision to throw out the test results was upheld. Judge Sonia Sotomayor was one of those judges who signed onto the ruling opinion. But this is not really my point.

During debate over this action, one night while watching the news, I heard one man who lived in Hartford being interviewed by the news reporter. The man made a statement that went like this: “It is most important that our fire departments are a reflection of our society, racially and ethnically.”

In other words, this man was saying that it mattered not to him whether the firefighters who showed up at his house to fight a fire and perhaps have to rescue him or his family were not necessarily the best trained, only that they were diverse of race and ethnicity.

Surely this man couldn’t have meant what he said. If that were true, we would need to begin structurally changing a lot of things in this country to reflect the racial and ethnic percentages of our society. Where should we start? Professional sports?

If you will recall when President Bush had to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court, he picked Harriet Miers. There was outrage. Not that she was a woman but because she was not the most qualified person for that position. Many of us felt at the time that President Bush felt obligated to replace outgoing Justice Sandra O’Connor with another woman, even if it meant not filling the job with the best candidate.

Is President Obama making a similar decision in his option to nominate Sonia Sotomayor? I am told that Obama’s short list of four finalists where all women. Does this tell us that there are no men in the United States who are qualified to server on the Supreme Court or was Obama’s focus on satisfying the cries of his people that they wanted to make history….again?

What I find disturbing are the reasons given to appoint her and many of the comments Sotomayor herself has made.

Obama made it very clear that he was looking for someone who would be “empathetic” in their decision making process. Obama’s senior advisor David Axelrod said recently that Sotomayor would be ready to adapt the principles of our Constitution to a modern day concept.

Those promoting the nomination of Sotomayor seemed quite focused on her life story as though it somehow should be the deciding factor in her qualifications to be a Supreme Justice. She herself is recorded as saying she felt a Latino woman, having lived a trying life, could make better judicial decisions than a white man who hadn’t.

These are all disturbing factors for those of us who treasure the U.S. Constitution as it is written. We can only hope these difficulties will be considered during upcoming hearings. The United States Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. Nothing should get by them. They, as a group, have to uphold the very Constitution that has held the country together and made it strong.

I heard Sotomayor yesterday say that she believes that the rule of law is what keeps this country together. That’s not what I wanted to hear from an appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court. Perhaps that would have been a great statement coming from a newly appointed chief of police. For a Supreme Court justice, I would rather have heard that they believed that the U.S. Constitution is what has made America great and for us to continue on a strong path in retaining liberty and justice, we need a justice who fully understands that document of what it meant when it was written and that it means the same thing today.

Like the brain surgeon about to take your life into his or her hands, do you want the next Supreme Court Justice to be the best qualified or someone who makes history because they would be the first Latina to sit on the bench?

It’s your call.

Tom Remington

A woman in a hot-air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, “Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don’t know where I am.”

The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, “You’re in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2,346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.

“She rolled her eyes and said, “You must be a Republican.”

“I am,” replied the man. “How did you know?”

“Well,” answered the balloonist, “everything you told me is technically correct. But I have no idea what to do with your information, and I’m still lost. Frankly, you’ve not been much help to me.”

The man smiled and responded, “You must be an Obama Democrat.”

“I am,” replied the balloonist. “How did you know?”

“Well,” said the man, “you don’t know where you are or where you are going. You’ve risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You’re in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now it’s my fault.”

The following is part of a list I received claiming to be Darwin Awards. I can’t seem to locate any of these stories at their site but I thought this one story kind of summed things up as far as those in charge of stimulating our economy and bailing out their buddies.

~~~~~

When his 38 caliber revolver failed to fire at his intended victim during a hold-up in Long Beach , California would-be robber James Elliot did something that can only inspire wonder. He peered down the barrel and tried the trigger again. This time it worked.

Dear Montana and Idaho Safari Club International Members:

A number of animal rights groups are about to file a lawsuit to challenge the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s newest rule that delisted the wolves of your states and that returned wolf management to your state fish and game authorities.

SCI’s Litigation Department will be moving to intervene to defend the wolf delisting rule. To participate in this litigation, we must demonstrate for the court how the rule benefits SCI members and how the Plaintiffs’ success in challenging the rule would harm our members. For that reason we would like to hear from members who:

1) hunt in Montana and/or Idaho.

2) have encountered a wolf while hunting, have lost prey to a wolf or have competed with a wolf for prey while hunting; have lost a pet or hunting dog to a wolf; have noticed a difference in game population numbers and/or behavior due to the presence of wolves in a preferred hunting area; or have had to change your choice hunting locations due to the presence of wolves in the area.

We are looking for individuals who can describe one or more of the experiences above and who would be willing to sign a declaration (statement under oath) that documents their experience. Although we know that there are many SCI members and other members of the hunting community who are frustrated by the presence of wolves, please contact us ONLY if you are an SCI member and have experienced one of the circumstances listed above.

If you have had one of the above experiences and would be willing to help us prepare and then sign a declaration, please e-mail our Director of Litigation, Anna Seidman [aseidman@safariclub.org] with a brief description of your experience. Please provide your e-mail address and your telephone number and Anna or one of the other members of our Litigation Team will contact you.

Thank you.

Anna M. Seidman

This has gone around the block more than once or even twice but I thought it entertaining enough to share with readers along with a few of my own modifications.

~~~~~~~~~

Last week I purchased a burger at Burger King for $1.58. The counter girl took my $2 and I was digging for my change when I pulled 8 cents from my pocket and gave it to her. She stood there, holding the nickel and 3 pennies, while looking at the screen on her register. I sensed her discomfort and tried to tell her to just give me two quarters , but she hailed the manager for help. While he tried to explain the transaction to her, she stood there and cried. Why do I tell you this? Because of the evolution in teaching math and teaching in general since the 1950s:

1. Teaching Math In 1950s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit ?

2. Teaching Math In 1960s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?

3. Teaching Math In 1970s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?

4. Teaching Math In 1980s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.

5. Teaching Math In 1990s

A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers, and if you feel like crying, it’s ok. )

6. Teaching Math In 2009

Un hachero vende una carretada de maderapara $100. El costo de la producciones es $80. Cuanto dinero ha hecho?

7. Teaching Math in 2015

???? hachero ????? ??? carretada ?? maderapara( 100. ?????? ??????? ??????? ??????????? ??( 80. ??? ??????? ?? ???????

Tom Remington