The previous drummer with the US whip metal band Megadeth, Nick Menza, has passed on in the wake of breaking down in front of an audience at a gig in California. Menza, who was 51, is said to have endured a heart assault amid one of his consistent sessions with his band OHM at a little Los Angeles jazz club, the Baked Potato.
Menza's administration issued an announcement affirming the news. "Scratch broken down amid the third melody into a set with his band OHM. Most punctual reports demonstrate he endured an enormous heart assault and was claimed dead upon landing in doctor's facility."
The club posted "Tear Nick Menza" on its Facebook page in the early hours of Sunday. Dave Mustaine, prime supporter of Megadeth, said on Twitter that he arose at 4am to the news. "Let me know this isn't valid," he composed.
Marty Friedman, the previous Megadeth guitarist, composed on Facebook: "We as a whole know the immense and one of a kind drummer that Nick Menza was, yet he was likewise ahttp://mehandidesignsimages.blogkoo.com/round-mehandi-designs-images-affordable-home-design-386438 dependable companion, a silly bandmate, and in addition an exceptionally cherishing father. I'm past pitiful, did not see this coming by any stretch of the imagination. Tear Brother."
Menza's biographer J Marshall Craig said "We request supplications for Nick's family, his family, and particularly his two children and their mom, Teri."
"He simply go through about two weeks with the young men in the Pacific north-west and was totally sparkling. He was planned to travel to my home in Cape Cod tomorrow with the goal that we could complete the comic-book adaptation of the book we composed on his life, MenzaLife, both of which were slated for discharge late one month from now. Toward the beginning of today we are very numb to consider anything other than Nick's family."
Mike Simpson, a fan who said he was at the gig, reported that Menza broken down before the third melody in the band's set. "I was watching his band OHM at the Baked Potato today evening time and he broken down in front of an audience. Paramedics were stating it resembled a heart assault," he composed. Another fan, Andrew White, composed: "A colossal piece of my high school years has passed away with this news."
Allen Hall posted: "We lost an astounding ability and phenomenal individual yesterday. Scratch Menza was the most pleasant and most genuine person you ought to ever would like to meet. He would take the shirt off his back to help you on the off chance that you required it. He had an energy for work of art, not simply metal music. His tastes were far more extensive than that kind, which dependably incensed his chief."
Menza, child of a jazz artist, played with Megadeth on a few of its best collections in the mid 1990s, incorporating Rust in Peace, Countdown to Extinction and Youthanasia. He exited the band when he needed to have knee surgery amid a visit for the 1997 collection Cryptic Writings.
He had been playing general sessions at the Baked Potato club with OHM, established in 2002 by another Megadeth veteran, the guitarist Chris Poland.
A day after the National Rifle Association embraced Donald Trump for president, the gathering's main lobbyist said "Bernie's correct" with regards to claims against gunmakers.
For a considerable length of time, Hillary Clinton has hammered her adversary for the Democratic presidential assignment, Bernie Sanders, for supporting a 2005 government law that bars claims against weapon organizations when their items are abused by lawbreakers.
On Saturday, at the yearly meeting of NRA individuals in Louisville, Kentucky, the NRA's main lobbyist played a clasp of a reaction from the Vermont congressperson.
Amid a March banter in Michigan, Sanders said: "In the event that you go to a weapon store and you lawfully buy a firearm, and after that, after three days, in the event that you go out and begin killing individuals, is the purpose of this claim to hold the weapon shop proprietor or the maker of that weapon at risk?
"On the off chance that they are offering an item to a man who purchases it legitimately, what you're truly discussing is closure weapon producing in America. I don't concur with that."
A corridor loaded with NRA individuals gave the clasp a sprinkling of commendation. To chuckling, Chris Cox, leader of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, said: "I don't say this regularly … OK, fine, I've never said it. In any case, Bernie's privilege.
"Holding firearm makers at risk for the demonstrations of psychos and terrorists will make them bankrupt overnight."
Cox said Clinton's backing of claims against weapon organizations was an "indirect access" endeavor to boycott firearms by "suing weapon makers into chapter 11".
Not long ago, Sanders recommended that a claim against the organizations that sold a firearm utilized as a part of the 2012 Newtown school shooting was "a secondary passage path" to boycott strike weapons.
Relatives of the 20 youngsters and six grown-ups who passed on at Sandy Hook primary school are suing the producer, merchant and merchant of the military-style Bushmaster rifle that was utilized. Legal advisors for the families contend the organizations were careless in offering a risky weapon to the overall population, and that macho publicizing might be intended to target unstable, feeble young fellows.
The firearm organizations in the suit say that they are secured by the 2005 government shield law that Sanders bolstered, and that the Sandy Hook catastrophe had nothing to do with the sort of weapon utilized, which was legitimately acquired by the shooter's mom.
The Clinton battle has highlighted the case, and she has won support from some relatives of casualties from Sandy Hook casualties and different mass shootings.
The Sandy Hook families have won a progression of little specialized triumphs as of late, with a Connecticut judge deciding toward the beginning of May that weapon organizations ought to start the revelation procedure. Whether the case can push ahead in spite of the government shield law will be chosen in October.
Sanders sponsored off from his backing of the 2005 shield law prior this year, with his battle saying he would now bolster a cancelation. However, as Clinton and some relatives of Sandy Hook casualties have scrutinized his position on the firearm business, he has rehashed his backing for the focal precept of the law: that weapon organizations ought not be considered mindful on the off chance that they offer a firearm legitimately and it is later utilized as a part of a wrongdoing.
Cox told NRA individuals that Clinton's backing for claims against firearm organizations had nothing to do with wellbeing "and everything to do with banning your weapons".
"At the point when a criminal thumps out a comfort store agent with a play club, you don't sue Louisville Slugger," he said.
"At the point when a terrorist shoots many individuals in San Bernardino, or a disturbed creature butchers school kids, well – as indicated by Hillary, that is the weapon maker's flaw and they should be sued for it. This has literally nothing to do with keeping anybody more secure, anyplace, and everything to do with banning your firearms.
"They need to make a fantasy that they're keeping us safe."
The Obama organization ought to just "bring each criminal with a firearm, street pharmacist with a weapon and criminal posse part with a weapon off the lanes right this moment and lock them up for a long time or more", Cox said.
Rather, he said, Obama "kicks back and does nothing so he can misuse the gore".
After the March discuss, in a tweet that Clinton supporters shared happily, the NRA communicated its backing for Sanders' case that claims would bankrupt the firearm business.
In light of feedback, Sanders' crusade has over and over touted the hopeful's "merited D-short appraising from the NRA".
On Friday, as he acknowledged the NRA's support, Trump urged Sanders to keep running as a free on the off chance that he lost the Democratic designation to Clinton.
"I think Bernie ought to keep running as an autonomous," Trump said. "I need him to keep running as a free. At that point it would be the three of us in front of an audience. I would love that."
"Bernie Sanders is a decent man," Arnald Harrison, 51, a NRA part from Schererville, Indiana, said on Sunday. "It's too terrible that he's a liberal."
In a discourse to individuals on Saturday, the NRA's official VP reverberated an alternate strain of Sanders' reactions of Clinton – her "six-figure addresses" to Goldman Sachs.
Wayne LaPierre said: "When the political elites cleared our way for Wall Street get-rich plans and smashed our economy and there's no place for you to work [and] there's no cash for police and the schools in our nation are a fiasco, they let you know: you're all alone."
At this point, practically everybody recognizes what Edward Snowden did. He released top-mystery records uncovering that the National Security Agency was keeping an eye on a huge number of individuals over the world, gathering the telephone calls and messages of for all intents and purposes everybody on Earth who utilized a cell telephone or the web. When this daily paper started distributed the NSA records in June 2013, it touched http://mehandidesignsimages.amoblog.com/mehandi-design-images-for-gents-star-foot-tattoos-locating-sites-436645 off a furious political civil argument that proceeds right up 'til today – about government reconnaissance, additionally about the profound quality, legitimateness and urban benefit of whistleblowing.
In any case, on the off chance that you need to know why Snowden did it, and the way he did it, you need to know the stories of two other men.
The first is Thomas Drake, who blew the shriek on the exceptionally same NSA exercises 10 years before Snowden did. Drake was a much higher-positioning NSA official than Snowden, and he obeyed US informant laws, raising his worries through authority channels. What's more, he got pounded.
Drake was discharged, captured at first light by weapon wielding FBI specialists, stripped of his trusted status, accused of wrongdoings that could have sent him to jail for whatever remains of his life, and everything except demolished fiscally and professionally. The main occupation he could discover a while later was working in an Apple store in rural Washington, where he remains today. Making an already difficult situation even worse, his notices about the threats of the NSA's reconnaissance project were to a great extent disregarded.
"The legislature spent numerous years attempting to break me, and the more I opposed, the nastier they got," Drake let me know.
Crane, an unequivocally manufactured Virginia occupant with specks of dark in a perfectly trimmed chinstrap whiskers, comprehended Snowden's choice to break the tenets – yet bemoaned it. "Somebody like Snowden ought not have felt the need to mischief himself just to make the best choice," he let me know.
Crane's affirmation is not just a piece of information to Snowden's inspirations and techniques: if his claims are affirmed in court, they could put present and previous senior Pentagon authorities in prison. (Official examinations are unobtrusively under way.)
In any case, Crane's record has much bigger consequences: it disavows the position on Snowden taken by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton – who both keep up that Snowden ought to have raised his worries through authority channels since US informant law would have ensured him.
When Snowden opened up to the world in 2013, Crane had invested years battling a losing fight inside the Pentagon to give informants the legitimate securities to which they were entitled. He considered his obligations so important, and conflicted with his bosses so regularly, that he conveyed duplicates of the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 and the US constitution in his front pocket and hauled them out amid office clashes.
Crane's lawyers at GAP – who were accustomed to working with a wide range of government and corporate informants – were perplexed by him: in their experience, most senior government authorities looked after informants' rights. So what inspired Crane to continue battling for the privileges of informants inside the Pentagon, even as his bosses developed progressively threatening and in the long run constrained him to leave?
To hear Crane let it know, the boldness to fight keeps running in his family. He always remembered the story he heard as a kid, about his own granddad, a German armed force officer who once confronted down Adolf Hitler at gunpoint – on the night the future Fuhrer initially attempted to assume control Germany.
A previous press helper to Republican individuals from Congress, John Crane was employed by the Inspector General's office of the Department of Defense in 1988. Inside US government offices, an examiner general serves as a sort of judge and police boss. The IG, as the examiner general is known, is accused of ensuring a given organization is working as per the law – obeying standards and directions, burning through cash as approved by Congress. "In the IG's office, we were the folks with the white caps," Crane said.
By 2004 Crane had been elevated to collaborator auditor general. At 48 years old, his obligations included overseeing the informant unit at the Department of Defense, and taking care of all informant affirmations emerging from the division's two million representatives (by a long shot the biggest workforce in the US government), sometimes incorporating claims beginning in the NSA and other insight organizations.
At this point, Thomas Drake had continued well down the way that would in the long run associate him with Crane. Drake's first day as a completely fledged worker of the National Security Agency was 11 September 2001. In spite of the fact that the NSA would expand in size and spending plan as the US reacted to the September 11 assaults, the office effectively positioned as the biggest, most richly subsidized spy association on Earth. Made in 1952, the NSA was the administration's code-breaker and all-listening to worldwide "ear". The NSA blocked the interchanges of remote governments and people and made an interpretation of this crude knowledge into data usable by the CIA, the FBI and related government offices.
Drake, a father of five, had worked for the NSA for a long time as a private-segment contractual worker. Presently, as a staff part legitimate, he reported specifically to the NSA's third most elevated positioning authority, Maureen Baginski; she headed the NSA's biggest division, the Signals Intelligence Directorate, which was in charge of the capture of telephone calls and different interchanges.
Tall, serious, extreme, Drake was a title chess player in secondary school whose present for arithmetic, PCs and dialects made him a characteristic for remote listening stealthily and the cryptographic and semantic aptitudes it required. Amid the frosty war, he worked for aviation based armed forces knowledge, observing the interchanges of East Germany's notorious mystery police, the Stasi.
Inside weeks of the September 11 assaults, Drake was doled out to set up the NSA's posthumous on the calamity. Congress, the news media and the general population were requesting answers: what had turned out badly at the NSA and other government organizations to permit Osama canister Laden's agents to direct such an overwhelming assault?
As Drake talked with NSA partners and scoured the office's records, he went over data that alarmed him. It created the impression that the NSA – even before September 11 – had covertly amended its extent of operations to extend its forces.
Since its commencement, the NSA had been entirely prohibited from listening in on residential interchanges. Drake's examination influenced him that the NSA was presently damaging this confinement by gathering data on interchanges inside and also outside of the United States. What's more, it was doing as such without acquiring legitimately required court orders.
A straight bolt since secondary school – he once gave the police the names of schoolmates he associated with offering pot – Drake let me know he felt constrained to act. "I took a vow to maintain and safeguard the constitution against all adversaries remote and residential," he clarified.
To Drake, the President's Surveillance Program, as it was known inside the George W Bush organization, reviewed the outlook of the Stasi. "You don't invest a seemingly endless amount of time listening to a police state without being influenced, you simply don't," he let me know. "I said to myself,http://mehandidesignsimages.blogzet.com/mehandi-design-image-dulhan-fabric-design-for-fun-or-profit-173301 'Goodness, I don't need this to happen in our nation!' How would you be able to live in a general public where you generally must look over your shoulders, not knowing who you could trust, even in your own particular family?"
Drake's plunge into a bad dream of oppression on account of his own legislature started guiltlessly. Having revealed confirmation of clearly illicit conduct, he did what his military preparing and US informant law trained: he reported the data up the levels of leadership. Starting in mid 2002, he imparted his worries first to a little number of high-positioning NSA authorities, then with the suitable individuals from Congress an��� aff at the oversight councils of the US Senate and House of Representatives.
Drake spent endless hours in these sessions however in the end reached the conclusion that nobody in a position of power needed to hear what he was stating. When he told his manager, Baginski, that the NSA's extended reconnaissance taking after 9/11 appeared to be lawfully questionable, she apparently instructed him to drop the issue: the White House had governed generally.
John Crane first caught wind of Thomas Drake when Crane and his partners at the Pentagon's Office of the Inspector General got an informant protestation in September 2002. The grumbling claimed that the NSA was support a way to deal with electronic observation that was both monetarily and naturally unreliable. The objection was marked by three previous NSA authorities, William Binney, Kirk Wiebe and Edward Loomis, and a previous senior Congressional staff member, Diane Roark. Drake likewise supported the dissension – but since he, dissimilar to the next four, had not yet resigned from taxpayer driven organization, he asked that his name be kept unknown, even in a report that should be dealt with secretly inside the legislature.
Binney, Wiebe, Loomis and Roark shared Drake's worries about the established ramifications of warrantless mass observation, yet their dissension concentrated on two different issues.
The first was monetary. The informants battled that the NSA's observation program, codenamed Trailblazer, was a disgraceful misuse of $3.8 billion – it had been more powerful at diverting citizen dollars to corporate temporary workers than at ensuring the country.
Second, the informants cautioned that Trailblazer really made the US less secure. They recognized that Trailblazer had endlessly extended the measure of electronic correspondences NSA gathered. In any case, this torrential slide of crude information was an excess of – it exited NSA's examiners attempting to recognize the fundamental from the insignificant and in this manner subject to miss key hints.
Drake had found a stunning case while exploring his after death report on the September 11 assaults. Months in advance, the NSA had come into ownership of a phone number in San Diego that was utilized by two of the ruffians who later slammed planes into the World Trade Center. In any case, the NSA did not follow up on this finding.
As Drake later told the NSA master James Bamford, the NSA blocked seven telephone calls between this San Diego telephone number and an al-Qaida "safe house" in Yemen. Drake found a record of the seven calls covered in a NSA database.
US authorities had long realized that the Yemen safe house was the operational center point through which Bin Laden, from a collapse Afghanistan, requested assaults. Seven telephone calls to such a center point from the same telephone number was clearly suspicious. However the NSA made no move – the data had clearly been ignored.
The NSA informants first sent their protestation to the reviewer general of the NSA, who ruled against them. So they went up the bureaucratic stepping stool, documenting the protest with the Department of Defense assessor general. There, Crane and his staff "considerably asserted" the protestation – at the end of the day, their own examination reasoned that the NSA informants' charges were presumably on target.
Over the span of their examination, Crane and his partners in the examiner general's office likewise asserted the informants' affirmation that the Bush organization's reconnaissance program damaged th.
The Bush organization's mass observation endeavors were somewhat uncovered in December 2005, when the New York Times distributed a front page article by correspondents James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, which uncovered that the NSA was checking global telephone calls and messages of some individuals in the US without getting warrants.
After eight years, that story would be predominated by Snowden's disclosures. Be that as it may, at the time, the Bush White House was irate – and they were resolved to discover and rebuff whoever had released the subtle elements to the New York Times.
As indicated by Crane, his bosses inside the Pentagon's Inspector General's office were enthusiastic to offer assistance. Henry Shelley, the general direction – the workplace's top legal advisor – encouraged that the IG office ought to tell the FBI specialists researching the Times spill about Drake and the other NSA informants.
All things considered, the NSA informants' late protest had questioned the same reconnaissance rehearses portrayed in the Times article – which made them legitimate suspects in the break. Crane questioned strenuously. Educating anybody – a great deal less FBI agents – of an informant's name was unlawful.
In the wake of debating the matter at a formal meeting in the individual office of the auditor general, Shelley and Crane kept contending in the lobby outside. "I ventured into my front pocket and hauled out my duplicate of the Whistleblower Protection Act," Crane reviewed. "I was worried that Henry was damaging the law. Our voices weren't raised, yet the discussion was, I would say, extremely serious and unsettled. http://mehandidesignsimages.hazblog.com/Primer-blog-b1.htm Henry [replied] that he was the general guidance, the general insight was accountable for taking care of things with the Justice Department and he would do things his way."
Henry Shelley declined my rehashed demands for a meeting. In an email, he let me know, "I am certain when this matter is completely determined no wrongdoing for my sake will be recognized."
There the difference amongst Crane and Shelley slowed down. On the other hand so it appeared until year and a half later. On the morning of 26 July, 2007, FBI operators with weapons drawn raged the places of Binney, Wiebe, Loomis and Roark. Binney was toweling off after a shower when specialists hailed him; he and his significant other all of a sudden ended up with firearms pointed straightforwardly between their eyes, the resigned NSA man reviewed.
Crane noticed a rodent. The examination that his staff had directed into the informants' protest had been exceptionally grouped: not very many individuals could have known their names, and they would have been inside the IG's office. After the assaults, Crane stood up to Shelley and requested to know whether the IG's office had given the names to the FBI. Shelley declined to examine the matter, Crane says.
The fight soon heightened. After four months, FBI operators raged Drake's home in an early morning strike, as his family watched in stun.
After Drake was prosecuted in 2010, his legal counselors recorded a Freedom of Information Act solicitation to get archives identified with the examination Crane's office had directed into the cases of the NSA informants. As indicated by Crane, he was requested by his bosses in the IG's office to postpone discharging any records – which could have excused Drake – until after the trial, which was relied upon to happen later in 2010.
Crane affirms that he was requested to do as such by Shelley and Lynne Halbrooks – who had as of late been named the chief delegate controller general (at the end of the day, the second-most elevated positioning authority in the IG's office). Crane challenged however lost this clash also. (Halbrooks did not react to rehashed demands for a meeting.)
In December 2010, about five years after the Pentagon's reviewer general's office had evidently given Drake's name to FBI agents, Drake's legal advisors recorded a grumbling with the assessor general, charging that Drake had been rebuffed in striking back for his whistleblowing. As per their objection, the violations Drake had been accused of were "situated to some degree, or altogether, on data that Mr Drake gave to the [Pentagon] IG" amid its examination of the NSA informants.
Crane was without a moment's delay frightened and revolted. The objection from Drake's legal advisors appeared to affirm his suspicion that somebody in the IG's office had illicitly fingered Drake to the FBI. More terrible, the prosecution recorded against Drake had unmistakable similitudes to the private affirmation Drake had given to Crane's staff – recommending that somebody in the IG's office had not just given Drake's name to the FBI, but rather shared his whole confirmation, an utter infringement of law.
Drake's dissension requested examination, Crane told Halbrooks. Be that as it may, Halbrooks, joined by Shelley, professedly rejected Crane's interest. She included that Crane wasn't being a "decent cooperative person" and on the off chance that he didn't get down to business, she would make life troublesome for him.
In any case, there was surprisingly more terrible to come. As Drake's trial drew closer in the spring of 2011, Crane realized that the law required the IG's office to answer the countering grumbling documented by Drake's attorneys. Be that as it may, Crane says, Shelley now educated him it is difficult to react – in light of the fact that the pertinent reports had been wrecked. Lower level staff "messed up", Crane said Shelley let him know: they had destroyed the archives in a probably routine cleanse of the IG's incomprehensible stores of secret material.
Crane couldn't trust his ears. "I told Henry that demolition of records under such circumstances was, as he knew, an intense matter and could prompt the examiner general being blamed for blocking a criminal examination." Shelley answered, by, that it didn't need to be an issue if everybody was a decent cooperative person.
On 15 February, 2011, Shelley and Halbrooks sent the judge in the Drake case a letter that rehashed the reason given to Crane: the asked for records had been annihilated, by error, amid a normal cleanse. This standard cleanse, the letter guaranteed Judge Richard D Bennett, occurred before Drake was arraigned.
"Lynne and Henry had solidified me out by then, so I had no contribution to their letter to Judge Bennett," Crane said. "So they wound up misleading a judge in a criminal case, which obviously is a wrongdoing."
With Drake stubbornly opposing prosecutors' weight to make a supplication bargain – "I won't deal with reality," he announced – the legislature in the end pulled back the greater part of its charges against him. Subsequently, the judge impacted the administration's behavior. It was "uncommon", he said, that the legislature burst into Drake's home, arraigned him, yet then dropped the case on the eve of trial as though it wasn't a major ordeal all things considered. "I find that unconscionable," Bennett included. "Unconscionable. It is at the very base of what this nation was established on … It was a standout amongst the most key things in the bill of rights, that this nation was not to be presented to individuals thumping on the entryway with government power and coming into their homes."
At the point when John Crane put his vocation hanging in the balance by defending legitimate treatment of Pentagon informants, he was taking after an ethical code set down 80 years before by his German granddad. Crane experienced childhood in rural Virginia, yet he spent about each mid year in Germany with his mom's more distant family. Amid these late spring visits, Crane heard incalculable times about the minute when his granddad went up against Hitler. His mom and his grandma both recounted the story, and the ethical never showed signs of change. "One should dependably attempt to make the best decision, notwithstanding when there are dangers," Crane was told. "What's more, if somebody make the best decision, there can obviously be results."
Crane's granddad was days short of turning 40 on the night of Hitler's "Brew Hall Putsch", 8 November, 1923. Plotting to oust the Weimar Republic, Hitler and 600 outfitted individuals from his juvenile Nazi gathering encompassed a brew corridor in Munich where the legislative leader of Bavaria, Gustav von Kahr, was tending to an extensive group. The revolutionaries burst into the corridor, wanting to capture Von Kahr and walk on Berlin. After his men disclosed an automatic weapon covered up in the upstairs exhibition, Hitler discharged his gun into the air and yelled, "The national transformation has started!"
Crane's granddad, Günther Rüdel, was in the corridor as a feature of his military obligations, Rüdel reviewed in an eight-page, single-separated, typewritten testimony that gives a moment by-moment onlooker record of the putsch. (Rüdel was later an administration witness in the trial that sentenced Hitler to five years in jail, however he was not called to affirm.)
The child of a noticeable German general, Rüdel had presented with unique excellence in the principal world war, winning two Iron Crosses. By 1923, he was serving as boss political assistant to General Otto von Lossow, the German armed force's most noteworthy authority in Bavaria. In that capacity, Rüdel was the central contact between Von Lossow and Von Kahr and conscious of the two men's numerous dealings with Hitler. http://mehandidesignsimgs.beepworld.de/ Suspecting that Hitler and his adherents were arranging an overthrow, Lossow and Rüdel had constrained their way into the lager corridor to screen improvements. The leader of Bavaria's state police, Hans Ritter von Seisser, was likewise there, joined by a bodyguard. Rüdel was remaining with Lossow and Von Seisser when outfitted men burst into the lobby, with Hitler in the number one spot.
"Hitler, with gun held high, escorted on right and left by equipped men, his tunic recolored with brew, raged through the corridor towards the platform," Rüdel wrote in his sworn statement. "When he was straightforwardly before us, police boss Von Seisser's auxiliary grasped [but did not unsheath] his sword. Hitler quickly pointed his gun at the man's mid-section. I yelled, 'Mr Hitler, along these lines you will never free Germany.' Hitler delayed, brought down his gun and pushed his way between us to the platform."
No comments:
Post a Comment