About Me

Mike LaFerrara

New Jersey

Greetings and welcome to my blog. My name is Michael A. (Mike) LaFerrara. I sometimes use the pen or "screen" name "Mike Zemack" or "Zemack" in online activism such as posted comments on articles. Zemack stands for the first letters of the names of my six grandchildren. I was born in 1949 in New Jersey, U.S.A., where I still reside with my wife of 42 years. The goal and purpose of my blog is the discussion of current or historical human events based on an Objectivist perspective. For a full discription of the purpose of this blog, see my Introduction. One final introductory note: I strongly recommend Philosophy, Who Needs it, which highlights the inescapable importance of philosophy in every individual's life. I can be reached at mal.atlas@comcast.net. Thanks, Mike LaFerrara.

My Complete Profile

    Of Special Interest
FIRM Healthcare Publications
ARC On Healthcare
Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis
ARC's Response to the Financial Crisis
The Financial Crisis: Causes and Possible Cures

    Influential Books
-AYN RAND'S NORMATIVE ETHICS...The Virtuous Egoist Tara Smith
-FREE MARKET REVOLUTION: How Ayn Rand's Ideas can End Big Government Yaron Brook and Don Watkins
LIBERAL FASCISM...The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning Jonah Goldberg
-REAGAN'S WAR Peter Schweizer
-SOMETHING FOR NOTHING: The All-Consuming Desire that turns the American Dream into a Nightmare Brian Tracy
-STATE OF FEAR Michael Crichton
-THE OMINOUS PARALLELS...The Chaos of Pre-Hitler Germany...and The End of Freedom in America Leonard Peikoff
EXPLAINING POSTMODERNISM...Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault

    Recommended Reading
-Moral Health Care vs. “Universal Health Care” by Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh

-Health Care is not a Right by Leonard Peikoff

FAQ on Free Market Health Insurance

Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America

Principles of a Free Society

The Comprachicos

Why Individual Rights?

    Meaningful Quotes
-"I love getting older...I get to grow up and learn things." Madalyn, then 5 years old, Montessori student, and my grand-daughter

-"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." Francis Bacon

-"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." Ronald Reagan

-"Thinking is hard work. If it weren't, more people would do it." Henry Ford

-"Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries." Ayn Rand

Posted by Michael A. LaFerrara on
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Huber on the Personalized Medicine Revolution—and the Government Roadblocks
The convergence of two technological revolutions—biochemical and digital—has given rise to personalized medicine, which allows drug treatments to be tailored to the individual’s own unique genetic profile.

But the enormous promise this dual revolution holds for human health is threatened by antiquated laws and regulations, particularly the federal Food and Drug Administration. So observes Peter W. Huber in his book The Cure in the Code: How 20th Century Law is Undermining 21st Century Medicine.

Huber is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, and his book is a fascinating read. He gives us an in-depth look at the modern drug science he dubs “intelligent design.” Huber observes:

In the last three decades, biochemists have made the transition from blind guesswork to the systematic design of precisely targeted drugs [which, in turn, has] transformed molecular medicine into an applied science anchored in immaterial code of almost limitless power and plummeting cost. [P. 23]

For example, scientists using powerful computers can now peer into the genetic makeup of individual patients to identify “biomarkers”—genetic traits that enable scientists to determine which particular drugs work for which individual patients.

But the FDA’s standard drug approval protocols, rigidly geared to one-size-fits-all “crowd” treatments for what Huber calls the “legacy germs”—infectious diseases like smallpox, cholera, and polio which earlier medicine was mainly concerned with—doesn’t jibe with the new sciences. The result: Countless valuable drugs go unlicensed or are severely restricted in their usage.

Huber also shows:

There’s more. Huber’s interesting book is rich in history, facts, insight, and policy prescriptions covering the science, economics, and regulation of modern drug development. He systematically pulls it all together into a convincing call for—if not a fully free healthcare market—at least a much freer one.

From this layman’s perspective, The Cure in the Code is not only a valuable addition to the intellectual arsenal of anyone concerned about freedom and individual rights in healthcare, but also of interest to anyone—rich or poor, of whatever political persuasion—who values a future of quality, ever-more-affordable healthcare.

Related Reading:

Life and Liberty vs the FDA

How the FDA Violates Rights and Hinders Health—Stella Daily Zawistowski

Breakthrough in Gene Therapy Holds Great Promise—Joshua Lipana

Gene Therapy Scientists Play God, Attack Cancer, Win

Close the FDA’s “Loopholes” of Statism, not Freedom

Labels: , ,

Permalink - 10:00 AM  

Posted by Michael A. LaFerrara on
Sunday, October 19, 2014
The Job Creators: Santa Claus Government or Private Business?
A recent letter appearing in the NJ Star-Ledger was titled Government, private sector create jobs together.

Actually, the content of the letter is even worse than the title suggests. Walt Lukasik opens with:

Republicans abound in their assertion that the private sector produces jobs in America, not the government. However, the U.S. government is the largest consumer of private-sector goods and services. If our government decided to halve its budget, is there any doubt that businesses would close and millions of Americans would be jobless?

Any guesses on what Lukasik's solution to job creation is? I left these comments:

And just where does the funding for government consumption and "investment" come from? Lukasic apparently believes that the government is Santa Claus; that government creates wealth out of thin air (or in some Polar fantasy land).

But, there is no free lunch. The government gets its money by forcibly seizing it from productive private citizens through direct taxes, future taxes (borrowing), or hidden taxes (printing press money, which is a tax on private purchasing power). Every dollar government spends is one dollar less that private citizens have to spend or invest. The only difference between public and private spending is that government officials, rather than the people who earned it, spend it as they please. Not only is this fundamentally immoral, it is economically destructive, because most government spending is driven by political calculations, rather than economic self-interest.

The source of government revenue is the private initiative of free individuals pursuing their life's goals. The only role of the government, to the extent it "consumes" and "invests," is to transfer money from some individuals to other individuals—and nothing more. Beyond its fundamental job to protect individual rights, the government can only harm the economy. Without the productive private economy, the strength of which depends on economic and political freedom, there could be no government consumption, investment, or jobs. The leaders of the private economy are those extraordinaire individuals whose intellectual energy exceeds his physical capacity to realize his productive vision—and whose ambition leads to action. The result is the businessman, who takes the risks, identifies the markets, organizes the factors of production—including the creation of jobs—and provides the vision and direction of the enterprise toward the creation of products and services that consumers are willing to voluntarily spend their money on.

But in Lukasic's fantasy land, "improving the standing of middle-class America" entails turning productive Americans into a giant welfare class, where every day is Christmas and people wait greedily for prosperity to shower down from Santa Claus government.

This would be hilarious if it weren't so serious. Many powerful people buy into this gunk; or worse, know it's gunk but exploit those who buy it to buy votes and expand their own power. A giant chunk of government policies, called Consumption Economics or Keynesianism, is built on this fantasy, and productive taxpayers foot the bill. 

There is no question that jobs are created under government-funded economic activity, but only at the expense of even more job creation under private spending. Government can only help the job creation process by interfering less—lower taxes and regulations—or hinder it, by higher taxes, higher government spending, or more regulations.

In the past 15 years, government has hindered rather than helped. The results are clear for all to see; the housing bubble and bust and related Great Recession; the slowest recovery ever; a semi-permanent underclass of unemployed; record levels of official poverty; slow wage growth; restrained private business (i.e., real) investment; all within the context of what, according to the Santa Claus theory, should have produced economic nirvana— record spending, record debt, and record monetary expansion.

Related Reading:

Mazzucato’s Fantasy: The “Courageous, Entrepreneurial State”
What is the "Key" to Job Creation?

"Government Help" Leads to Totalitarian Socialism

About That “Government Help,” Mr. Roumell

Labels: , ,

Permalink - 10:00 AM  

Posted by Michael A. LaFerrara on
Friday, October 17, 2014
NAFTA, Whatever its Flaws, Was a Good Thing
A letter criticizing NAFTA and opposing other free trade agreements appeared in the New Jersey Star-Ledger recently. Rob Kneller cited a study that concludes that "an estimated 682,900 U.S. jobs have been 'lost or displaced' because of the agreement and the resulting trade deficit."

I left these comments:

Regarding the "estimated 682,900 U.S. jobs [that] have been 'lost or displaced'" because of NAFTA—assuming it's true—so what? Jobs are always "lost or displaced" as the economy evolves. Mature U.S. firms shed 1 million jobs annually, on balance, yet new firms create 3 million new jobs for a net average gain of 2 million American jobs.

As Frederic Bastiat  noted, a good economist always considers secondary consequences ("what is NOT seen"), not just immediate consequences that are more easily seen. What about the domestic jobs created through increased U.S. exports or expanding domestic sales in industries that grow because of the extra spending power U.S. consumers enjoy due to lower prices of foreign-made goods? No study can trace all of the positive secondary consequences of free trade. [But] in the 14 years after NAFTA, the U.S. job force grew by 27 million.

That's the practical side. More important is the moral side. What right does anyone have to stand in the way of Americans buying or selling goods and services from or to individuals in other countries? Kneller wrings his hands over "secret" trade agreements, yet he has no problem interfering with the rights of other Americans. Trade is a win-win—a mutually beneficial transaction. What's wrong with two producers from different countries getting better together? Individuals trading the product of their labor with each other for mutual betterment fosters prosperity. If the trade is between individuals in different countries, it benefits the economies in both countries. The arrogant and derogatory smear of  "sweatshop countries" is a cheap shot at people in poor countries taking a job to better themselves. Anyone concerned with overall U.S. economic strength and job creation should want economic growth in other countries, which only comes from individual's pursuing a better life for themselves and their families through production and trade.

The "free" in free trade means the absence of physical force or coercion. Laws restricting trade between citizens of different countries are based on force, and are immoral unless they serve to prop up tyrannies (as with the old Soviet bloc or, today, with North Korea). There may be things wrong with NAFTA or other trade liberalizing treaties, but the extent to which free trade among citizens is liberalized is not one of them.

Anyone truly concerned about American jobs should focus on U.S. government policies that stifle job creation, like occupational licensure, environmental regulations, minimum wage laws, local zoning restrictions, and forced unionization. Stop trying to block your fellow Americans from exercising their inalienable right to trade with others, be they from Canada, Mexico, or another state within U.S. borders.

Related Reading:

Bangladesh Building Collapse Not a Result of Free Trade

Labels: , ,

Permalink - 10:00 AM  

Posted by Michael A. LaFerrara on
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
Independent Voters are Independent for a Reason
What does it mean to be a Democrat of Republican (or a member of any political party)? It means you get to play a part, via primary elections, in choosing your party's candidates to run against opposing party candidates in general elections.

What does it meant to be "unaffiliated"? It means you do not belong to any political party, commonly known as an Independent. Not being a member of any political party, you don't get a vote on which candidates political parties run in general elections.

Considering that every registered voter can choose his party affiliation, this would seem uncontroversial and fair. 

But, apparently, there are some Independents who don't know what "independent" means. Jaime (“Jim”) Martinez, a member Independent­Voting.org, and Rebecca Feldman, president, Morristown Town Council published a letter in the New Jersey Star-Ledger highlighting and supporting a federal lawsuit that "demands that every voter have an equal vote at every stage of the state-funded election process." They write:

    Primary elections are a critical juncture in the democratic process. But in New Jersey, independents — who are 47 percent of registered voters — are forced to join a party in order to vote. This is the independent’s plight: We are first-class taxpayers when it comes to funding elections, but second-class voters.     A change is clearly needed, so the voices of millions of independent voters who do not now have full voting rights can be heard.

I left these comments:

This letter brings to mind the old saying about eating one's cake and having it, too.

I'm a former Republican who registered as an Independent in 2006 because neither [major] party any longer substantially represented my principles and viewpoints. When I did so, I willingly gave up the ability to vote in primaries. I did not give up "full voting rights." What business does an Independent have to help choose candidates of parties he chose not to belong to?

The idea that Independents are "first-class taxpayers when it comes to funding elections, but second-class voters" is absurd on its face. We are not "second-class voters." We are voters who exercised a particular choice with full knowledge of the consequences. (Taxpayer funding of candidates is a problem, and should be abolished. But that is another issue.)

If this ridiculous and juvenile lawsuit succeeds, and non-party members are allowed to pollute the primary process, then any ideological distinction between the parties would likely be diluted and washed away. If that happens, there will be no truly independent political parties, and no real ideological choice in many contests. We might as well have one-party rule.

It's true that the rights of Independents are violated by being forced to fund "public matching funds" to political candidates. But everyone's rights are violated by government funding laws. Taxpayer funding of elections is what should be challenged.


Permalink - 10:00 AM  

Posted by Michael A. LaFerrara on
Monday, October 13, 2014
The Great Achievement of Christopher Columbus
Excerpts from an op-ed in the Bucks County Courier Times, October 11, 2007.

Columbus Day Celebrates Western Civilization

By Thomas Bowden

On October 12, 1492, Christopher Columbus discovered the New World.

We need not evade or excuse Columbus’s flaws--his religious zealotry, his enslavement and oppression of natives--to recognize that he made history by finding new territory for a civilization that would soon show mankind how to overcome the age-old scourges of slavery, war, and forced religious conversion.

On Columbus Day, we celebrate the civilization whose philosophers and mathematicians, men such as Aristotle, Archimedes, and Euclid, displaced otherworldly mysticism by discovering the laws of logic and mathematical relationships, demonstrating to mankind that reality is a single realm accessible to human understanding.

On Columbus Day, we celebrate the civilization whose scientists, men such as Galileo, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein, banished primitive superstitions by discovering natural laws through the scientific method, demonstrating to mankind that the universe is both knowable and predictable.

On Columbus Day, we celebrate the civilization whose political geniuses, men such as John Locke and the Founding Fathers, defined the principles by which bloody tribal warfare, religious strife, and, ultimately, slavery could be eradicated by constitutional republics devoted to protecting life, liberty, property, and the selfish pursuit of individual happiness.

On Columbus Day, we celebrate the civilization whose entrepreneurs, men such as Rockefeller, Ford, and Gates, transformed an inhospitable wilderness populated by frightened savages into a wealthy nation of self-confident producers served by highways, power plants, computers, and thousands of other life-enhancing products.

On Columbus Day, in sum, we celebrate Western civilization as history’s greatest cultural achievement. What better reason could there be for a holiday?

In another op-ed on Fox News.com, Let's Take Back Columbus Day, Bowden said this:

We’ve been taught that Columbus opened the way for rapacious European settlers to unleash a stream of horrors on a virgin continent: slavery, racism, warfare, epidemic, and the cruel oppression of Indians.
This modern view of Columbus represents an unjust attack upon both our country and the civilization that made it possible. Western civilization did not originate slavery, racism, warfare, or disease--but with America as its exemplar, that civilization created the antidotes. How? By means of a set of core ideas that set Western civilization apart from all others: reason and individualism.

Excerpts from an op-ed in Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, October 10, 2008

Columbus was a hero

By Dimitri Vassilaros

Christopher Columbus could not have discovered a better spokesman than Thomas A. Bowden.

The accomplishments of Columbus should speak for themselves. But thanks to political correctness, the moronic multicultural mob keeps talking them down. Mr. Bowden has been speaking passionately and forcefully about Columbus for years.

"My ancestors were savages," says Bowden matter-of-factly. Everyone can say the same, depending on how far back one is willing to look at lineage. "It's nothing racial or ethnic; it's historical fact."

"Columbus critics have a disguised criticism of Western civilization because Europeans replaced Stone Age Indians. They believe that this continent would have been better off without Europeans, that industrial civilization is an evil that is to be lamented and regretted.

"That is the real criticism of Columbus. I reject it completely."

Indians typically were widely scattered Stone Age tribes, he says. "They had little agriculture and lived in poverty, fear, ignorance and superstition. They had no concept of government, ownership or private property rights.

"Slavery was perfectly common.

Well, didn't Indians at least live in harmony with nature?

"No," says Bowden. "Man should not live in harmony with nature in the sense of simply keeping it pristine. We live by impacting the environment. The environment has no intrinsic value. Our civilization is more in harmony with nature by making it serve our ends."

Well, what about all the land supposedly stolen from the Indians by European settlers?

Indians did not own the vast reaches of land that they traveled on, Bowden says. Ownership of land is deserved, he says. By that, he means a settler can acquire property rights by making the land more valuable by, say, digging it up for farming. Or to build his homestead or business.

Columbus essentially was an explorer and discoverer bringing Western civilization's cures, science and technology, he says. The philosophical legal process was another gift the Europeans gave to the Indians, he says. "Indians got all that for free."

Columbus' critics should fall down on their knees and thank the Founding Fathers for creating a nation based on the moral principle of the individual's right to life, liberty and, Bowden stresses, the selfish pursuit of happiness.

"It's the only nation that came about in such a way. Anyone who has humanity's interest at heart should love America," he says.

Excerpts from Man's Best Came With Columbus—Michael S. Berliner

Did Columbus “discover” America? Yes, in every important respect. This does not mean that no human eye had been cast on America before Columbus arrived. It does mean that Columbus brought America to the attention of the civilized world, i.e., the developing scientific civilizations of Western Europe. The result, ultimately, was the United States of America. It was Columbus’s discovery for Western Europe that led to the influx of ideas and people on which this nation was founded and on which it still rests. The opening of America brought the ideas and achievements of Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, and the thousands of thinkers, writers, and inventors who followed. What they replaced was a way of life dominated by fatalism, passivity, superstition, and magic.

Happy Columbus Day

Related Viewing:

Columbus Day Without Guilt—Thomas A. Bowden

Labels: , ,

Permalink - 6:00 AM  

Posted by Michael A. LaFerrara on
Sunday, October 12, 2014
Memo to John D. Atlas: How About Let's Not Suppress Anybody's Vote, or Voice
Another election is fast approaching, so the issue of “voter suppression” has predictably surfaced again. John D. Atlas, a NJ Voices contributor and self-described “writer and activist lawyer,” weighed in on the issue. Under cover of concern about low voter turnout, Atlas smuggles in a pro-statist agenda. He notes that those least likely to vote “tend to be working poor, minority and young people.” But . . .

When they do vote, they tend to vote for candidates who favor redistributionist policies, such as higher taxes on the rich, raising the minimum wage, government-supported job training, and universal health-care. And they typically don’t vote Republican.

Why do so few of this group vote? Atlas “speculates” that:

Most non-voting Americans, especially the working-poor, are alienated from mainstream politics and don’t vote because they see politicians as unresponsive to their needs or perspectives. Moreover, minority voters have long faced obstacles-literacy tests, poll taxes, intimidation, threats, and violence.

Atlas doesn’t bother to “speculate” on why past obstacles to voting—which, aside from literacy tests, a reasonable requirement, ceased decades ago—should inhibit people from voting today.

Atlas asserts that this trend “is bad for our democracy, bad for equality, and something should be done about it.” This is a strange statement, given that our “democracy” has spawned an almost total conversion from a predominantly free, capitalistic society to today’s gargantuan regulatory welfare state over the past century, including a “great leap forward” for the welfare state in the past 15 years under both party’s rule. If anything, these facts tend to support the conclusion that the statist/socialist trend was driven more by the intellectuals and wealthier voters than by poor people looking for a handout.

Atlas doesn’t explain this contradiction, but wants to do “something about” what appears, from a Leftist’s perspective, not to be broken.

Do what? After hinting darkly about some “powerful financial interests” that somehow causes young adults to believe “it makes no difference who you vote for,” blaming Republicans’ “protracted struggle over voting rights,” and calling for some technical election reforms, Atlas gets to the meaty stuff: “Campaign finance reform that eliminates corporate special interest money would help.”

It sure would help, but whom?

I left these comments:

I’m under no illusions that my lone vote will “count,” in the sense of swaying an election one way or another. It doesn’t. But I vote regularly. Notwithstanding the excuses for not voting listed here, people who choose not to vote are either uninterested, unmotivated, or just plain lazy. Whatever past practices of actual voter suppression once existed, the universal right to vote is now firmly protected. Anyone who wants to vote can vote.

This article is really all about suppressing the votes of people who favor less government intrusion into our lives—intrusions like mandatory sick pay and redistribution of earnings to those who didn’t earn it.

The tip-off is the call to ban corporate campaign spending, but not union spending. Atlas calls for silencing the free speech rights of those “financial interests” most likely to advocate for less regulation and lower taxes, thus silencing and suppressing millions upon millions of Americans who agree with the pro-liberty message. Unions are big “financial interests,” too. NJ.com’s Matt Friedman recently reported that, between 1999 and 2013, unions accounted for 55% of special interest spending in NJ; some $171 million. Why not ban union spending? Because unions are more likely to advocate for statist, redistributionist policies, and thus speak for millions upon millions of people who agree with that message.

This transparent article is all about advancing an ever-more-statist government and silencing statists’ victims—a Leftist agenda. How about this: Don’t silence anybody—whether individuals or associations of individuals—and let elections be shaped on the public battleground of ideas. That’s what the First Amendment is for.

Related Reading:

Democracy for All: The "Drown Out the Voice of Average Americans" Amendment

"McCutcheon" Advances Free Speech and Republican Government

Labels: ,

Permalink - 10:00 AM  

Posted by Michael A. LaFerrara on
Friday, October 10, 2014
Reducing Luck to its Proper Rank
Don Watkins recently posted an interview with author Brian Tracy at Voices for Reason. I particularly liked this statement from Tracy:

I have spoken and written on this subject extensively. There is no such thing as luck; there are only probabilities. The good news is that you can influence the probabilities on your behalf.

The harder you work, the luckier you get. The more you learn about your craft, the better you become, and the better results you get. The better you manage your time, the more productive you are and the better your results will be. Every one of these constructive actions increases the probabilities that you will be the right person, doing the right work, in the right place. As a result, doors will open for you and you will move ahead far faster than the average person who is passive, and who simply waits and hopes for things to get better.

Tracy, whom I had never heard of before reading Watkins’s interview, is an interesting person. You can read the interview here.

Related Reading:

Responsibility & Luck: A Defense of Praise and Blame—Diana Hsieh

Labels: ,

Permalink - 10:00 AM  


Philosophy, Who Needs It?

The Objectivist Ethics

Atlas Shrugged: America's Second Declaration of Independence

    Blogs of Interest
George Reisman's Blog
Junk Science
Leonard Peikoff
Rule of Reason
The Objectivist
The Rational Capitalist
The Undercurrent
TOS Blog
We Stand Firm

    Sites of Interest
Alex Epstein at Forbes
Ayn Rand Campus
Ayn Rand Institute
Ayn Rand Lexicon
Capitalism Magazine
Climate Depot
Center for Industrial Progress
Harry Binswanger @ Forbes
Job Creators Alliance
My Objective Standard Archives
The Capitalism Site
The Objective Standard
Thomas Sowell

    Recent Posts
Huber on the Personalized Medicine Revolution—and ...
The Job Creators: Santa Claus Government or Privat...
NAFTA, Whatever its Flaws, Was a Good Thing
Independent Voters are Independent for a Reason
The Great Achievement of Christopher Columbus
Memo to John D. Atlas: How About Let's Not Suppres...
Reducing Luck to its Proper Rank
Law Mandating "Equal Pay for Equal Work" is Logica...
Craig Biddle on Auberon Herbert
“Corporate Personhood” Clarified

July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014

Blog Design by:
Living My Dream
Images from:

Powered by: