From Stormbringer comes this. A day late but an excellent read!
ON THIS DAY in 480 BC, Leonidas reaches Thermopylae with 300 Spartans and 700 Allies.
.............Thermopylae is one of the most famous battles of the ancient world, of course; it took place in northern Greece during the Persian Wars. The Greek forces, led by King Leonidas of Sparta, managed to hold out for three days against the forces of Persian king Xerxes I, said to have numbered "one million" but probably closer to 200,000. Still, the feat of the Spartans was remarkable. Eventually Leonidas released the other Greek forces and a small Spartan contingent remained behind to resist the advance. The Greeks were only defeated after a traitor betrayed a route by which the Persians were able to outflank them. Leonidas and the remaining members of his original 300 Spartans were killed to the last man............
http://seanlinnane.blogspot.com/2011/08/go-tell-spartans.html
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Jewish University Presidents Who Abandon Jews: American Thinker
Here are the first three paragraphs from the post at American Thinker.
Needless to say had I been present, I would have been in jail. The dirtbag named Zakharia would have been in hospital.
First an foremost the scumbag camel jockey beat up a woman. Strike one. That in and of itself is enough to give him a thrashing that would leave him in a wheel chair, shitting in a bag for the rest of his life.
But let's face it.............a camel jockey did it to an American Female Citizen of the Jewish Faith. Muslim on Jew violence.........something we see almost daily in the news from the Eastern Mediterranean.
I am a Jew. Perhaps not observant and pious as my Mother would have liked. But a Jew, none the less. It is more than going to synagogue and celebrating holidays. And them damn movies, OK! Good grief, look at what I did for a career. Not what the good Jewish Democrat does for a living! Maintain Carrier Attack Aircraft!!!!!!!!
Nah, I would have put a boot in that shitbirds nuts.......hard, fast and frequently....and laughed while I did it.
The link has the rest of the article. Read it. Pass it on......This is what we face...........in Our Republic. Hard to believe.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/jewish_university_presidents_who_abandon_jews.html
...........Since we live in a craven age, let's salute our few heroes. Meet Jessica Felber, a 21-year-old Lioness of Judah, who's suing the University of California for failing to protect her civil rights.
Felber is a student activist at Berkeley who simply asserts her right to stand on campus and hold a sign saying, "Israel Wants Peace," without subsequently needing urgent medical attention. What Jew can count on that right on a UC campus these days?
In March 2010, Felber was violently assaulted by Husam Zakharia, the leader of Students for Justice in Palestine, as she peacefully held her sign at a pro-Israel event. UC authorities "were fully aware that Zakharia, the SJP and similar student groups had been involved in other incidents on campus to incite violence against and intimidate Jewish and other students," says her renowned lawyer, Neal Sher. Nevertheless, "[d]efendants took no reasonable steps to protect Ms. Felber and others.".................
Needless to say had I been present, I would have been in jail. The dirtbag named Zakharia would have been in hospital.
First an foremost the scumbag camel jockey beat up a woman. Strike one. That in and of itself is enough to give him a thrashing that would leave him in a wheel chair, shitting in a bag for the rest of his life.
But let's face it.............a camel jockey did it to an American Female Citizen of the Jewish Faith. Muslim on Jew violence.........something we see almost daily in the news from the Eastern Mediterranean.
I am a Jew. Perhaps not observant and pious as my Mother would have liked. But a Jew, none the less. It is more than going to synagogue and celebrating holidays. And them damn movies, OK! Good grief, look at what I did for a career. Not what the good Jewish Democrat does for a living! Maintain Carrier Attack Aircraft!!!!!!!!
Nah, I would have put a boot in that shitbirds nuts.......hard, fast and frequently....and laughed while I did it.
The link has the rest of the article. Read it. Pass it on......This is what we face...........in Our Republic. Hard to believe.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/jewish_university_presidents_who_abandon_jews.html
Monday, June 27, 2011
Some PIG!
Hambo's Hammer for Monday, 27 June 2011!
What is an American
[A Southern Mexifornia fishwrap, the O.C. Register, asked its readers to answer the question, 'What is an American?', but they only gave the reader 100 words to get 'er done. I have already answered that question, but it's somewhat longer than 100 words.]
What is an American? The answer to that depends on whom you ask:
Mahmoud al-Gilligan, and all his Jihadikaze home boys will tell you that an American is evil personified. He will insist that an American is a demon who inhabits the Great Satan, their term for the United States of America.
Messiah Al's disciples will tell you that an American is a carbon-spewing, energy swilling junkie who is callously destroying Mother Earth.
Hugo "Skipper" Chavez and his Marxist cohorts will tell you that an American is a capitalist exploiter who is enslaving the underclasses.
Cindy Sheehan class peace punks will insist that an American is a war monger who won't rest until he has trampled defenseless nations underfoot and enslaved the denizens of those nations.
Before we can get a meaningful answer to our question, we need to seek the answer to another, equally important question: What is it that defines a national identity like "Italian", "Canadian", or "American"?
Ethnicity: Many national identities (Japanese, for example) are based, in part, on a shared ethnicity. That's a viable standard, but it won't work for America, because Americans can, and do, come from any/every ethic group. There is no ethnic/racial litmus test that will exclude someone from becoming an American.
Culture: Another common criteria for a national identity is a shared culture that stretches back centuries or millennia. That won't work for Americans who have a propensity for remaking their culture on the fly. Americans, routinely, borrow elements from other cultures, especially when it comes to foods, fashions and terminology.
Geography: Being an American isn't tied to a certain portion of the North American continent. It's not the land itself that makes someone an American. An American is an American, no matter where he, she, heshe or it lives.
Longevity: In some instances, a national identity is based on how long a group of people have lived in a certain place. Excluding Siberian-Americans, those most commonly identified as Americans have only been living in the New World for 400 years, at most.
Obviously the usual traits that define a national identity don't seem to apply to 'American'. The 'American' identity isn't limited by ethnicity, culture, geography and longevity. We need to dig deeper for the answer to this question.
What is an American? It's not the vile things that our critics claim and it defies the conventional criteria for a national identity. The essence of being an American was shaped by this land, but not defined by it. The essence of being an American was, and is, enriched by the many ethnicities that inhabit this land conceived in liberty but isn't limited to any one of them. The essence of being an American is demonstrated by, not defined by, American culture.
The traits that define an American aren't anything tangible. Being an American is an attitude, a singular mindset, that we carry inside each and every one of us who are proud to state "I'm an American". The central fact about Americans is that their national identity was created, from scratch, by those rugged individuals who made their home here.
We are, as the open borders crowd insists, a nation of immigrants. Each new wave of immigration has put its own mark on the American character, redefining what it means to be an American, in the process.
The first immigration wave to the New World was undertaken at least 10,000 years ago, in the waning days of an ice age. Leaving the world they knew, those original immigrants - those individuals I call Siberian-Americans - gazed upon the land bridge spanning the Bering Straits and boldly began a long journey into the unknown. They were the embodiment of that classic human trait that makes us seek the answer to the question: "I wonder where that leads?" They started out on a dangerous journey into unknown territory to face its dangers head-on. Why did they risk it? Because it's a primal human impulse to find out what's around that next turn in the road, beyond that hill on the horizon, or across that dangerous stretch of ocean.
The next wave of immigration began when determined individuals in Europe started out on their own dangerous journey in boats that were barely up to the challenge of a notoriously unforgiving stretch of ocean. They landed on the new world and began to populate its eastern shores with men and women who dared to dream of a bold, untried form of government. Many of those who started that journey never lived to finish it. Some of those who completed that dangerous passage, didn't survive the rigors that the New World imposed on them. Those who emerged from that trial by an unflinching Mother Nature laid the ground work for that singular individual we call an American.
Americans are, by nature, innovators, risk takers. An American is an individual who wants to test, his, her, hisher or its personal limits. An American wants to see how far, how high, their intellect, talent and hard work can take them. An American seeks "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" without Nanny State interference.
That seems to explain why people around the world spend years jumping through bureaucratic hoops, and surmounting countless hurdles for the right to become an American. Many of them understand what it really means to be an American better than most native born Americans. In many cases, these newest Americans put us to shame with their classically American work ethic, their determination to build their lives from scratch. They want to make their mark on the world, without Nanny State assistance.
There's a lot we can learn from these legal immigrats who work so hard to enter America through the front door. They have much more to offer than exotic foods, fashion trends and new terminology. They are a badly needed lesson, a warning, that we are allowing the Nanny State and its damn social safety net to strip all the real meaning from America's national identity.
It's my considered opinion that too many native born Americans have lost their way. The Nanny State's siren song of artificial rights and safety nets that 'spare' us the essential, character building, life lessons is destroying us. Those life lessons, those blows that the Nanny State absorbs, are vital when it comes to forging the American character. We have become fat, lazy and much too complacent, while the Nanny State chips away at our birthright of inalienable individual liberty. We are, in short, our own worst enemy when it comes to the erosion of that rugged individualism that is the solid foundation which gives being an American its unique meaning.
We've lost our way, but the situation isn't hopeless. Many - perhaps most - of America's legal, front door, immigrants harken back to the essence of what it means to be an American. They don't want a handout. They don't want a safety net. All they want is their chance to become that self-reliant, that self-made, individual, an American.
What is an American? If you still don't know, ask any legal immigrant. Ask any of those determined individuals who walk that long, torturous, path that ends at a ceremony where they are sworn in as a certified American. Ask those eager immigrants who dip their toe into those teeming capitalist waters with that donut shop, convenience store, dry cleaners or gas station. Ask that endlessly patient individual who is on that years long waiting list, ready, willing and eager for permission to realize that dream of becoming an American.
What is an American? A dreamer, an innovator, an arrogant, swaggering pain in the butt, who dares to tell the rest of the world: "I'm living proof that there's a better way."
[A Southern Mexifornia fishwrap, the O.C. Register, asked its readers to answer the question, 'What is an American?', but they only gave the reader 100 words to get 'er done. I have already answered that question, but it's somewhat longer than 100 words.]
What is an American? The answer to that depends on whom you ask:
Mahmoud al-Gilligan, and all his Jihadikaze home boys will tell you that an American is evil personified. He will insist that an American is a demon who inhabits the Great Satan, their term for the United States of America.
Messiah Al's disciples will tell you that an American is a carbon-spewing, energy swilling junkie who is callously destroying Mother Earth.
Hugo "Skipper" Chavez and his Marxist cohorts will tell you that an American is a capitalist exploiter who is enslaving the underclasses.
Cindy Sheehan class peace punks will insist that an American is a war monger who won't rest until he has trampled defenseless nations underfoot and enslaved the denizens of those nations.
Before we can get a meaningful answer to our question, we need to seek the answer to another, equally important question: What is it that defines a national identity like "Italian", "Canadian", or "American"?
Ethnicity: Many national identities (Japanese, for example) are based, in part, on a shared ethnicity. That's a viable standard, but it won't work for America, because Americans can, and do, come from any/every ethic group. There is no ethnic/racial litmus test that will exclude someone from becoming an American.
Culture: Another common criteria for a national identity is a shared culture that stretches back centuries or millennia. That won't work for Americans who have a propensity for remaking their culture on the fly. Americans, routinely, borrow elements from other cultures, especially when it comes to foods, fashions and terminology.
Geography: Being an American isn't tied to a certain portion of the North American continent. It's not the land itself that makes someone an American. An American is an American, no matter where he, she, heshe or it lives.
Longevity: In some instances, a national identity is based on how long a group of people have lived in a certain place. Excluding Siberian-Americans, those most commonly identified as Americans have only been living in the New World for 400 years, at most.
Obviously the usual traits that define a national identity don't seem to apply to 'American'. The 'American' identity isn't limited by ethnicity, culture, geography and longevity. We need to dig deeper for the answer to this question.
What is an American? It's not the vile things that our critics claim and it defies the conventional criteria for a national identity. The essence of being an American was shaped by this land, but not defined by it. The essence of being an American was, and is, enriched by the many ethnicities that inhabit this land conceived in liberty but isn't limited to any one of them. The essence of being an American is demonstrated by, not defined by, American culture.
The traits that define an American aren't anything tangible. Being an American is an attitude, a singular mindset, that we carry inside each and every one of us who are proud to state "I'm an American". The central fact about Americans is that their national identity was created, from scratch, by those rugged individuals who made their home here.
We are, as the open borders crowd insists, a nation of immigrants. Each new wave of immigration has put its own mark on the American character, redefining what it means to be an American, in the process.
The first immigration wave to the New World was undertaken at least 10,000 years ago, in the waning days of an ice age. Leaving the world they knew, those original immigrants - those individuals I call Siberian-Americans - gazed upon the land bridge spanning the Bering Straits and boldly began a long journey into the unknown. They were the embodiment of that classic human trait that makes us seek the answer to the question: "I wonder where that leads?" They started out on a dangerous journey into unknown territory to face its dangers head-on. Why did they risk it? Because it's a primal human impulse to find out what's around that next turn in the road, beyond that hill on the horizon, or across that dangerous stretch of ocean.
The next wave of immigration began when determined individuals in Europe started out on their own dangerous journey in boats that were barely up to the challenge of a notoriously unforgiving stretch of ocean. They landed on the new world and began to populate its eastern shores with men and women who dared to dream of a bold, untried form of government. Many of those who started that journey never lived to finish it. Some of those who completed that dangerous passage, didn't survive the rigors that the New World imposed on them. Those who emerged from that trial by an unflinching Mother Nature laid the ground work for that singular individual we call an American.
Americans are, by nature, innovators, risk takers. An American is an individual who wants to test, his, her, hisher or its personal limits. An American wants to see how far, how high, their intellect, talent and hard work can take them. An American seeks "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" without Nanny State interference.
That seems to explain why people around the world spend years jumping through bureaucratic hoops, and surmounting countless hurdles for the right to become an American. Many of them understand what it really means to be an American better than most native born Americans. In many cases, these newest Americans put us to shame with their classically American work ethic, their determination to build their lives from scratch. They want to make their mark on the world, without Nanny State assistance.
There's a lot we can learn from these legal immigrats who work so hard to enter America through the front door. They have much more to offer than exotic foods, fashion trends and new terminology. They are a badly needed lesson, a warning, that we are allowing the Nanny State and its damn social safety net to strip all the real meaning from America's national identity.
It's my considered opinion that too many native born Americans have lost their way. The Nanny State's siren song of artificial rights and safety nets that 'spare' us the essential, character building, life lessons is destroying us. Those life lessons, those blows that the Nanny State absorbs, are vital when it comes to forging the American character. We have become fat, lazy and much too complacent, while the Nanny State chips away at our birthright of inalienable individual liberty. We are, in short, our own worst enemy when it comes to the erosion of that rugged individualism that is the solid foundation which gives being an American its unique meaning.
We've lost our way, but the situation isn't hopeless. Many - perhaps most - of America's legal, front door, immigrants harken back to the essence of what it means to be an American. They don't want a handout. They don't want a safety net. All they want is their chance to become that self-reliant, that self-made, individual, an American.
What is an American? If you still don't know, ask any legal immigrant. Ask any of those determined individuals who walk that long, torturous, path that ends at a ceremony where they are sworn in as a certified American. Ask those eager immigrants who dip their toe into those teeming capitalist waters with that donut shop, convenience store, dry cleaners or gas station. Ask that endlessly patient individual who is on that years long waiting list, ready, willing and eager for permission to realize that dream of becoming an American.
What is an American? A dreamer, an innovator, an arrogant, swaggering pain in the butt, who dares to tell the rest of the world: "I'm living proof that there's a better way."
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Thoughts on the Air Force and Close Air Support
From Bring the Heat, Bring the Stupid on the ongoing discussion about CAS......
Copied in Full......
Copied in Full......
We’ve often been frustrated by the Air Force’s grudging provision of Close Air Support (CAS) over the years. And there’s an institutional perception throughout the Army that the Air Force doesn’t want to do CAS, and perhaps the Army should take over that role.
But it isn’t simply a case of the Air Force being a bunch of assholes, and leaving the Army hanging out to dry. There are real challenges to providing the type and quantity that Army would desire. Indeed, as a practical matter, they could never provide enough, as the Army would only demand more.
Since 1942, US ground commanders have been asking for more and better close air support. Early attempts at CAS in North Africa and Italy were dismal, partly because of technical reasons, partly because there was no established doctrine for how it should be done, and (in North Africa, especially) partly because the Luftwaffe had, if not air superiority, then at least air parity.
But as communications, techniques, and our own air superiority improved, so too did the Army Air Forces ability to provide CAS. By the time of the invasion of Normandy, the 9th Air Force introduced the TACs, or Tactical Air Commands. Each TAC was designed to operate in direct support of one of the field armies on the ground in France. And they did a great job. But what they didn’t do was provide a constant umbrella of CAS over each and every unit. In fact, a lot of what they did would later become known as BAI, or Battlefield Air Interdiction. What they DID do that is historically important, however, is to integrate their operations to support and synch up with those of the ground commander.
In Korea, and especially in Vietnam, when we think of CAS, we see it being used essentially as really heavy artillery, available on call when normal tube artillery wasn’t enough. For the most part, in the permissive environment in South Vietnam, that’s how the Army wanted it to be used, and the Air Force, in spite of its own institutional reservations, provided a great deal of that.
But after Vietnam, just as the Army turned its eyes to Western Europe, so did the Air Force. Just as the Army was facing enormous numbers of tanks and motorized Soviet divisions, the Air Force faced a very similar challenge in terms of the sheer numbers of Soviet Frontal Aviation forces arrayed against them. The Air Force faced up to the probability that if there was a war in Western Europe, they’d be lucky to maintain air-parity, and unlikely to immediately achieve air superiority. And given that fact, there would be no way they could provide CAS on anything like the scale the Army would want.
And for the most part, the Army understood that. The Air Force wasn’t ducking out on CAS because they didn’t like doing it. They were faced with the age old challenge of too many missions for the resources available. And something had to give. So the Air Force wanted to capitalize on the strengths of airpower, and use it to its maximum effectiveness for each sortie flown.
There came to be three basic types of missions in support of ground forces: Close Air Support, Interdiction, and a new term, Battlefield Air Interdiction, or BAI.
Close Air Support is, roughly, those air missions that are terminally controlled by a Forward Air Controller at the front lines, or in support of troops in contact.
Interdiction missions were deep strikes against ground targets in the enemy’s rear areas that were in general support of the ground forces, such as marshaling yards for railroads, oil refineries, ports and other shipping targets, command and control assets, and other infrastructure targets.
Battlefield Air Interdiction, however, was a little different. These were strikes in the enemy’s rear that were designed to directly influence the enemy, attrit his forces, and support a ground commander’s specific scheme of maneuver, but were far enough behind the front lines that they were not controlled by a forward air controller on the ground. The air commander and the ground commander worked together to nominate and service targets in this BAI environment. And example might be tasking the Air Force to drop a specific bridge, at a specific time, to disrupt the movement of a Soviet Motor Rifle Division for a predictable period of time (and likely follow up that strike with a series of strikes on the MRD while it is waiting for an alternate bridge to cross).
Airpower’s inherent capability to mass quickly and strike targets of relatively fleeting opportunity made BAI a more lucrative mission that trying to pick off a tank here or there at the front lines. Two F-16s might kill a couple tanks at the front lines, or they might stall an entire division for a day or more by dropping a bridge. The return on investment argued for the BAI mission, as far as the Air Force was concerned.
And the Air Force put a lot of effort and resources into the mission. Over the course of several decades, the Air Force spent billions and billions of dollars supporting this job. The E-8 JSTARS was designed to help find out where these columns of enemy divisions were. Entire families of bombs were designed to help the Air Force attack columns of Soviet tanks before they deployed into assault formation. Sensors and command and control networks were developed to give the Air Force the ability to find worthy targets, and assign appropriate strike packages to them quickly, all to support the scheme of maneuver on the ground.
The Army and the Air Force, through a series of high level staff conferences, came to a rough agreement on the role of airpower in the Army’s AirLand Battle Doctrine. As a practical matter, the Army understood that anything that was within range of the artillery of a unit on the ground was an Army target, to be attacked with artillery (or attack helicopters), and those targets further out were for the Air Force to attack. Those targets within a tactical corps Area of Interest (that is, enemy units that could reach the front in 48-72 hours, or roughly 100 miles behind the front lines) were generally treated as BAI targets, and the Air Force would work within the ground commander to attack those specific targets the ground commander nominated. Anything further back from the front lines was generally considered an interdiction target, and the Air Force would attack those based on its own desires, and the priorities of the theater commander.
Nor did the Air Force totally ignore the need for Close Air Support. It did, after all, in the austere budget environment of the 1970s, develop and buy several hundred A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft, designed specifically for Close Air Support. And every it provided Forward Air Controllers and Air Liaison Officers to every brigade in the Army. So the Air Force would provide some level of CAS to the Army, but the Army would have to prioritize which units on the ground would benefit from the limited available supply of CAS sorties.
The demonstration of this concept was, like so much else of AirLand Battle, the First Gulf War. While the Navy was firing Tomahawk missiles at Baghdad, and the Air Force’s F-117s were going downtown as well, the Air Force focused first on dismantling the Iraqi air defense network, bombing airfields and control nodes throughout the land. But they also quickly began both isolating the battlefield in general, by dropping bridges and cutting communications, and they began supporting the Army’s scheme of maneuver. They atrited Iraqi formations in general, and they attacked to fix, atrit or destroy specific units that the Army nominated for attention. If these attacks weren’t nearly as successful as the Air Force hoped (or claimed) that was more a matter of technical limitations than of a faulty doctrinal basis, or lack of good faith effort on the part of the Air Force. If each tank brigade in Desert Storm didn’t have a flight of A-10s overhead at all times, the Air Force might be forgiven for pointing out that the brigade did have access to at least one, and often three battalions of 155mm artillery, possibly a battalion of 8” artillery, a battalion of MLRS rocket artillery, and a battalion (or more) of AH-64 Apache gunships. The Army wasn’t exactly hurting for fire support in the close fight…
But now we come to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The low intensity conflict there against terrorist groups means that there really aren’t any BAI target or interdiction targets for the Air Force to attack. The enemy rarely masses and identifies itself until it is actually in contact with our ground forces. Further, the near universal adoption of precision guided munitions such as laser guided bombs, and GPS guided JDAMs means airpower can be used more precisely than conventional unguided artillery fires, with lower collateral damages. And the ability of strike aircraft to share video of their targeting imagery with forces on the ground via systems like ROVER (which transmits video from their targeting pods to laptops in the hands of troops on the ground) provides an excellent ability to “see over the next hill” or “around the corner” that his highly valued.
So CAS has quickly become the “big gun” of choice for troop units on the ground. After all, few things put an end to a fight like dropping a 2000lb bomb on the other guys head.
But while the Air Force has provided CAS for the Army for almost 10 years now in Afghanistan and Iraq, they still have other missions facing them. They still need to train to fight and win air superiority against a more conventional foe. And they only have a limited amount of money to spend. I strongly suspect the Air Force would be delighted to operated a Light Attack turbo prop plane in support of the Army… except they are convinced that the money would have to do so would inevitably come from the hide of some other program that the Air Force, as an institution, sees as a higher priority in the long term. One suspects also that the Air Force didn’t quite anticipate that it would be called upon to provide an aerial umbrella for a decade or more.
With the adoption of precision ground fires such as the Guided MLRS, the guided Excalibur 155mm projectile, and the newest GPS guided 120mm mortar round, perhaps some of the demand signal for Close Air Support will diminish. But likely not. Even with those tools in his pocket, any commander that thinks he can get air assets overhead is certainly going to ask for them. No commander ever went into a fight thinking he had too many resources.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Miyamoto Musashi: Samurai, Philosopher, Author
There was a two hour show about this man on History International this evening. What a man, he was.
Hosted by Mark Dacascos, good show. He basically walks in Musashi's footsteps........
Next time it airs, I recommend it.
Musashi is oft times referred to as "The Ultimate Warrior."
The link is to the Wikipedia entry about him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miyamoto_Musashi
Hosted by Mark Dacascos, good show. He basically walks in Musashi's footsteps........
Next time it airs, I recommend it.
Musashi is oft times referred to as "The Ultimate Warrior."
The link is to the Wikipedia entry about him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miyamoto_Musashi
Musashi Miyamoto with two Bokken (wooden quarterstaves)
Color version to replace B&W. Scan of ancient japanese scroll.
Image source is: http://www.akinokai.org/images/Images.htm?Musashi.jpg
Original document is too old to copyright, hence all faithful/mechanical reproductions should also be public domain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)