Rewriting American History

Leave a comment

H/T AmmoLand.

Liberals in their ignorance are trying to rewrite our history.


By Walter E. Williams

USA – George Orwell said, “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”

In the former USSR, censorship, rewriting of history and eliminating undesirable people became part of Soviets’ effort to ensure that the correct ideological and political spin was put on their history. Deviation from official propaganda was punished by confinement in labor camps and execution.

Today there are efforts to rewrite history in the U.S., albeit the punishment is not so draconian as that in the Soviet Union. New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu had a Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee monument removed last month. Former Memphis Mayor A C Wharton wanted the statue of Confederate Lt. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, as well as the graves of Forrest and his wife, removed from the city park. In Richmond, Virginia, there have been calls for the removal of the Monument Avenue statues of Confederate President Jefferson Davis and Gens. Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and J.E.B. Stuart. It’s not only Confederate statues that have come under attack. Just by having the name of a Confederate, such as J.E.B. Stuart High School in Falls Church, Virginia, brings up calls for a name change. These history rewriters have enjoyed nearly total success in getting the Confederate flag removed from state capitol grounds and other public places.

Slavery is an undeniable fact of our history. The costly war fought to end it is also a part of the nation’s history. Neither will go away through cultural cleansing. Removing statues of Confederates and renaming buildings are just a small part of the true agenda of America’s leftists. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and there’s a monument that bears his name — the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. George Washington also owned slaves, and there’s a monument to him, as well — the Washington Monument in Washington. Will the people who call for removal of statues in New Orleans and Richmond also call for the removal of the Washington, D.C., monuments honoring slaveholders Jefferson and Washington? Will the people demanding a change in the name of J.E.B. Stuart High School also demand that the name of the nation’s capital be changed?

These leftists might demand that the name of my place of work — George Mason University — be changed. Even though Mason was the author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which became a part of our Constitution’s Bill of Rights, he owned slaves. Not too far from my university is James Madison University. Will its name be changed? Even though Madison is hailed as the “Father of the Constitution,” he did own slaves.

Rewriting American history is going to be challenging. Just imagine the task of purifying the nation’s currency. Slave owner George Washington’s picture graces the $1 bill. Slave owner Thomas Jefferson’s picture is on the $2 bill. Slave-owning Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant’s picture is on our $50 bill. Benjamin Franklin’s picture is on the $100 bill.

The challenges of rewriting American history are endless, going beyond relatively trivial challenges such as finding new pictures for our currency. At least half of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were slave owners. Also consider that roughly half of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia were slave owners.

Do those facts invalidate the U.S. Constitution, and would the history rewriters want us to convene a new convention to purge and purify our Constitution?

The job of tyrants and busybodies is never done. When they accomplish one goal, they move their agenda to something else. If we Americans give them an inch, they’ll take a yard. So I say, don’t give them an inch in the first place. The hate-America types use every tool at their disposal to achieve their agenda of discrediting and demeaning our history. Our history of slavery is simply a convenient tool to further their cause.

About Walter E.Williams

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. Williams is also the author of several books. Among these are The State Against Blacks, later made into a television documentary, America: A Minority Viewpoint, All It Takes Is Guts, South Africa’s War Against Capitalism, More Liberty Means Less Government, Liberty Versus The Tyranny of Socialism, and recently his autobiography, Up From The Projects.


Democrats’ Hoodwinking of Blacks ~ Must See VIDEO

1 Comment

H/T AmmoLand.

It seems most blacks are content living on the DemocRat Plantation.

The blacks that leave the DemocRat Plantation are ridiculed by the blacks still on the DemocRat Plantation.

The Inconvenient Truth About The Democratic Party

By Walter E. Williams : Opinion

USA – -( Ask any black person which political party has been black people’s political ally.

With near unanimity, blacks would answer the Democratic Party.

Asked which political party has been hostile to blacks, they’d say the Republican Party with similar unanimity.

For better answers, check out Prager University’s five-minute video clip, below, “The Inconvenient Truth About the Democratic Party,” by Carol Swain, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University (

Since its founding in the late 1820s, the Democratic Party has defended slavery, started the Civil War and opposed Reconstruction. The Democratic Party imposed segregation. Its members engaged in the lynchings of blacks and opposed the civil rights acts of the 1950s and ’60s. During Reconstruction, hundreds of black men were elected to Southern state legislatures as Republicans, and 22 black Republicans served in the U.S. Congress by 1900. The Democratic Party did not elect a black man to Congress until 1935.

President Woodrow Wilson was a Progressive Democrat and an avowed racist who shared many views with the Ku Klux Klan. He resegregated the federal civil service. He screened the racist film “The Birth of a Nation,” originally titled “The Clansman,” at the White House; it was the very first movie ever played at the White House.

What was the party of Orval Faubus, the Arkansas governor who blocked the desegregation of Little Rock schools and defied the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision? What was the party of Theophilus Eugene Connor, known as Bull Connor, who, as city commissioner, set vicious dogs, fire hoses and billy clubs on black civil rights demonstrators in Birmingham, Alabama? Connor said: “You can never whip these birds if you don’t keep you and them separate. I found that out in Birmingham. You’ve got to keep your white and black separate.” If you answered that Faubus and Connor were Democrats, go to the head of the class. By the way, it was Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower who sent troops to ensure that black students could attend Little Rock’s Central High School.

What was the political party of Alabama Gov. George Wallace, who, during the 1960s civil rights movement, declared that he stood for “segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever” and blocked black students from entering the University of Alabama?


A few years later, the only serious congressional opposition to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 came from Democrats. Eighty percent of Republicans in the House of Representatives supported the bill. Less than 70 percent of Democrats did. Democratic senators, led by ex-Klansman Robert Byrd’s 14-hour filibuster, kept the bill tied up for 75 days, until Republicans mustered enough votes to break the filibuster.

Labor unions have always been allied with the Democratic Party and have a history of racism. Most of today’s black leaders give unquestioned support to labor unions and their policies that harm black workers, but yesteryear’s black leaders saw things differently. Frederick Douglass, in his 1874 essay “The Folly, Tyranny, and Wickedness of Labor Unions,” argued that unions were not friends of blacks. W.E.B. Du Bois called unions “the greatest enemy of the black working man.” Booker T. Washington also opposed unions because of their adverse impact on blacks.

Today, Democrats use diplomacy to hoodwink blacks. They tell blacks to be against those — such as Education Secretary Betsy DeVos — who are for school vouchers that enable black parents to get their children out of rotten schools run by Democrats at the National Education Association. Democrats are using black congressmen to go after Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, who is a high-profile conservative, champion of law and order, and supporter of President Donald Trump’s. They view Clarke as a threat to Democratic Party interests. Indeed, if Democrats lost just 25 percent of the black vote, they would be in deep political trouble.

By the way, none of what I’ve said should be taken as an argument that blacks should rush to become Republicans. I’d like to see the black community acting the way most Japanese and Chinese communities do — not getting into a tizzy over which political party is in power.

About Walter E.Williams

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. Williams is also the author of several books. Among these are The State Against Blacks, later made into a television documentary, America: A Minority Viewpoint, All It Takes Is Guts, South Africa’s War Against Capitalism, More Liberty Means Less Government, Liberty Versus The Tyranny of Socialism, and recently his autobiography, Up From The Projects.

Read more:
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Internet Cell Phone Purchase Ends with Robber Dead

Leave a comment

H/T AmmoLand.

This story could have ended tragically but fortunately the girls father was armed and was willing to use his gun. 
Bob Irwin highlights the latest self defense and other shootings of the week. Read them and see what went wrong, what went right and what we can learn from self defense with a gun.

USA –-( 3 KTRK (ABC) TV 13 News reported 05-10-2017 in La Porte, Texas, a family is grateful they are OK after a suspect attempted to rob them Friday night at their home in La Porte.

According to the family, their teenage daughter was buying a cell phone. The arrangement was made on the internet. The seller was supposed to meet them in a public place on Friday evening, police said. There were delays and the family agreed to meet at their home.

When the seller arrived that night, the teen girl asked if she could see the phone before handing over the money. The buyer then pointed a gun at the teen’s mother’s head and dragged her by the hair, continuing to demand the money.

When the teen ran inside to get the money, her father saw the gun pointed at his wife’s head. The father then tackled the suspect to the ground. He was able to get the seller, now robber, away from his wife. When the two regained their feet the father said he would go get the money but instead he got his gun.

He returned to the front door where the suspect was standing. The robber started to raise his gun and that’s when the father said he was forced to shoot.

Police said the robber was shot in the stomach. He left with another suspect who was sitting in the getaway car. He was found 15 miles away at a Citgo gas station. Police took him to the hospital where he later died.

The suspected driver of the getaway car was being questioned by La Porte police.


La Porte PD has special parking spots dedicated to buying, selling and exchanging goods in their parking lot. The spots are under 24-hour surveillance. They recommend people use those spots when making transactions.

“Anytime that you’re going to attempt to meet with a stranger to exchange goods, or money, or anything like that, you’ve got to be extremely cautious and that’s why we’re always looking out for our citizens and provide such a zone for them,” said Sgt. John Kreuger.

There are plans to do that here in southern Nevada too.

Bob Irwin, The Gun Store, Las Vegas

About Bob Irwin

The writer is the owner of The Gun Store in Las Vegas and has a gun talk radio show “Fired Up with Bob Irwin” Firedup is now on KSHP 1400 am radio from 9 to 10 pm on Thursdays and also on YouTube “Fired Up with Bob Irwin.


America First? Not If The Democrats & Never Trump Republicans Have Their Way


H/T AmmoLand.

Donald Trump can Make America Great Again inspite of The DemocRats and The Never Trump Republicans.

The Senate Axis of evil: Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., center, flanked by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., left, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

New York, NY  -( It should go without saying, but we will say it anyway because few other voices are saying it: This Country needs Donald Trump!

A substantial number of Americans understands this and agrees with this assertion.

Those who do not are prone to smug self-complacency, or to mournful resignation, or to emotional hand-wringing, or have simply given to parroting the nonsense spouted through the mainstream media believing that the nonsense emanates from their conscience when it is but an external virus thrust deep into the subconscious mind through insidious unrelenting psychological programming, where it remains to do its harm.

Our Country has lost its way. For far too long our Nation has been backsliding into defeatist statism. With Trump’s ascendancy, we have the means to return to our traditions, our heritage, our values, our sense of purpose, our pride in Nation, in family, in self. But, Congressional Democrats and Congressional Centrist Republicans don’t want this. The two groups share the same basic political goals and objectives. Those goals and objectives are contrary to the well-being of our Nation and its citizenry. Our President, Donald Trump, has charted a new course for our Country, one in line with the founders’ beliefs and ideals, one that asks the question, what is in our best interests of our Country rather than what is the best interests of other Countries. But, the naysayers—the Congressional Democrats and Centrist Republicans—will have none of it.

The Aims And Objectives Of Congressional Democrats And Centrist Republicans

One: Congressional Democrats and Congressional Centrist Republicans machinate continuously for an expansion of neoliberal globalist economic policies. This operates to the detriment of American labor and small business although beneficial to the multinationals, whose allegiance to any Nation State is nominal at best.

Two: Congressional Democrats and Congressional Centrist Republicans support the relaxation of our immigration laws. In so doing, they would effectively destroy the geographical integrity of our Nation. This reflects a conscious desire to mirror the aims of EU leaders, who seek, subtly, to erode the independence and sovereignty of individual European Nation States through uniform economic, political, and social governance, assisted through the slow dissolution of an individual Nation State’s national identity.

Concomitant with the relaxing of our Nation’s laws on naturalization, the two political groups, comprising the Congressional Democrats and Congressional Centrist Republicans, would give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, dismissing concern over the fact that at least hundred thousand of them belong to criminal gangs and drug cartels or are otherwise common criminals. A policy of amnesty for those residents in our Country, who are here illegally and are not, then, of our Country, would do nothing to curtail further influxes of illegal aliens entering our Country. To the contrary, granting amnesty to those persons who reside in our Country illegally would simply encourage millions more to enter this Country illegally, encouraging, also, the disassembling of our Nation’s history, its traditions, mores, and values, all of which would be replaced with a program reflecting new ideas and ideals–ideas and ideals at odds with our Country’s ideals and traditions. These new ideas and ideals include: multiculturalism, bilingualism or multilingualism, historical revisionism, ethical relativism, and obscuration and ambiguation of our sacred rights and liberties.

Three: Congressional Democrats and Congressional Centrist Republicans would carelessly invite into our Country—with the connivance of friendly federal Courts—millions of Muslims from failed Arab States, some of whom are, no doubt, actively in league with or who otherwise share sympathies with various Fundamentalist Islamic factions, all of which are resentful toward our Nation, its values, its laws, and which exhibit hatred toward our citizenry.

For those Islamists who are not radicalized on admission to this Country, there exists the inherent danger posed by radicalization, after the fact, as we have seen manifesting with disturbing regularity in this Country and in Europe.

Radical Islam constitutes a clear and present danger to the security of this Nation and to the safety and well-being of its citizens. Those who espouse utilitarian ethics piously endanger the safety and well-being of our citizenry.

Four: Congressional Democrats and Congressional Centrist Republicans adhere to and exhibit a fascination for neoconservative principals that reflect a desire for expanding influence–through any means—diplomatic or military—both in the Middle East and in the Baltic States. This expansionism merely for the sake of expansionism does not serve the security interests of our Nation and is, in fact, detrimental to our national security interests. It has cost our Country dearly in both currency and blood. Moreover, neoconservative policies have destabilized the Middle East. Dictators, such as Hussein, Gaddafi, and Assad have kept radical Islamic rebel groups at bay for decades. Removing two of the three has created a vacuum in the Middle East which has threatened the third. Would removal of Assad reverse the trend? Not likely. Nor would neoconservative policies designed to expand NATO influence in the Baltic States serve our Nation’s security interests. One need only consider how close the world came to nuclear annihilation when the Soviet Union encroached on our hemisphere through plans to plant nuclear weapons in Cuba, aimed at the U.S. We should not encroach on territory abutting Russia. Yet, this idea is not in line with the policies favored by the Congressional Democrats and Congressional Centrist Republicans that treat Russia as an adversary, even an enemy–policies that would in fact turn Russia into a most formidable adversary and enemy—policies in vogue with and pushed by Congressional Democrats and by Congressional Centrist Republicans and by the EU leadership, that profit from those who support them—the internationalist, globalist interests. These internationalist, globalist interests make their financial fortunes by promoting continuous tumultuous international tension, volatility, and upheaval. That is decidedly good for their profit margins. That is their upside. But, an unstable world has a downside for the American people: endangering their well-being, their own financial security, their very lives.

Five: the Congressional Democrats and Congressional Centrist Republicans seek to denigrate the notion of the inherent sovereignty of the Nation State. By undermining the value Americans place in this concept, Congressional Democrats and Congressional Centrist Republicans, seek, at the behest of the inordinately wealthy, immensely powerful, highly secretive, and utterly ruthless globalist, international forces that fund and control them, to loosen the historical ties that bind our Nation to its Constitution, that sanctify our rights and liberties, that solidify our values and traditions. With the loss of the ties that bind the American people to their Nation and to their National identity, the rights and liberties of the people are lost; the Constitution is undermined; the Nation’s great body of laws, it system of laws, the legal philosophical principals and jurisprudential underpinnings, all of which provide the foundation of our governance are subordinated to the legal system and laws of foreign courts and international tribunals. The sovereignty of our Nation is jeopardized.

Americans would see the eventual absorption of their Country into a wholly new economic, social, and political framework and reality—a new world order—a new economic, social, and political system mandating the disassembling of and the eventual eradication of the sovereignty of all Western Nation States. These Nation States would be reconstituted as subordinate elements within a large corporate consortium of member units, governed by a group of ruthless, inordinately wealthy and immensely powerful overseers who, alone, would wield supreme economic, political, and social powers over the masses. The masses would euphemistically be described as “citizens of the world”—a phrase even now coming into vogue through the assistance of the mainstream media.

This is what the destroyers of our Nation, of our Bill of Rights, of our history, of our traditions, and of our values, want, and that is what we will most certainly get, in time, if the powerful, secretive forces that seek to undermine Donald Trump’s Presidency prevail.

What is currently underway is no less than a quiet coup dˊétat of Government.


Eighth Circuit: Open Carry not Reasonable Suspicion for a Police Stop


H/T AmmoLand.         

The Eighth Circuit got this ruling right.

Arizona – -( In 2011, on November 2nd, The Lincoln City Police Department received a call about a young man displaying a firearm in an Astro van outside of a convenience store. The call lead to the felony stop of an Astro van about 4 hours later.

In the van was 58-year-old black pastor who was a double amputee. The officers forced the pastor, Leroy Duffie, to exit the van with his hands held up, after he had told them that he could not do so because of his disability.

At gunpoint, Duffie opened his door, and twisted his body in an attempt to comply. He then fell face forward to the pavement, suffering significant injuries including loss of two teeth and a torn rotator cup.

Duffie sued the police department for depriving him of his constitutional rights, of using excessive force, searching his van without his consent, and placing him in danger of physical harm without due process.

The trial court granted qualified immunity to the officers and granted summary judgment against Duffie on all counts.  Duffie appealed to the Eight Circuit.

The Eighth Circuit, on 23 August, 2016 reversed the trial court decision, finding that police did not have reasonable suspicion to stop Duffie, because the open carry of handguns is legal under the law in Nebraska. The Court referred to open carry as a right. On March 30th, 2017, Duffie and the City of Lincoln reached a settlement, with Duffie receiving $160,000.


The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in August reversed that decision and ruled Officers Nathan Kaiser, Tobias Hite and Shane Jensen violated his Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The judges took issue with the reason for the stop, saying a report of a person with a handgun isn’t enough to create a reasonable suspicion of a crime, and in Nebraska and Lincoln people can openly carry handguns.

From the comments at the journalstar article:

Pastor Duffie was ordered out of his van with his HANDS UP, held high. He could not use his arms/hands to help himself out. He tried his best to obey the police but fell out of the van because of the police orders. They had their guns out and pointed at him. What would you have done?? Refused their demands?? I know Pastor Duffie very well, he is one of my best friends and I attended his homechurch for several years until I moved to Kansas. We talk weekly. He is one of the most Christian men I know.

The Eighth Circuit decision is one of the latest in a trend that confirms that the mere carry of a firearm is not cause for a police stop. The decision also makes clear that mere presence of a weapon is not sufficient to allow a felony stop.  All of the states in the Eighth Circuit have provisions for legal open carry. The Duffie v. City of Lincoln decision applies to North Dakota, Minnesota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, and Arkansas. Arkansas, Missouri, and North Dakota are Constitutional Carry states. From (pdf):

Officer Kaiser relied on an incident report that did not contain information sufficient to create reasonable suspicion that Duffie had already, was, or was about to commit a crime. See United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 227 (1985) (extending Terry to the investigation of completed crimes). Nebraska law permits individuals who are at least 18 years old to open carry handguns in public. See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-1202, 28-1204 (2009). The City of Lincoln does not restrict an individual’s right to open carry except in certain locations. See Lincoln, Neb., Mun. Ordinances § 9.36.130. Moreover, the mere report of a person with a handgun is insufficient to create reasonable suspicion. See Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 272 (2000)

These are the decisions whereby Constitutional rights are preserved.

©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Link to Gun Watch


About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.


Communities of Color Need Stand Your Ground Laws

Leave a comment

H/T AmmoLand. 

All communities need Stand Your Ground Laws.


Minnesota-( Minnesota desperately needs common sense gun laws – just not the ones you might think. Bills HF238 and HF188 sought to remedy unreasonable components of the current system, but were not included in the public safety omnibus. These bills should be included as amendments.

HF238 included a provision commonly known as “stand your ground.” Stand your ground laws serve an important purpose for communities of color: they defend the innocent from overzealous prosecution. Ideally, a self-defense claim should center on whether your use of force was reasonable under the circumstances, not on whether you could run faster than your attacker or whether you memorized the blueprints of the building before making the split second decision to defend your life.

Stand your ground removes the requirement to prove you could not retreat in court. Rather than forcing you to prove a negative, it places the burden of proof where it belongs: on the state. The concept that a person is innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of American justice – or at least it’s supposed to be.

In reality, exercising your right to self-defense leads to further victimization by the legal system. As a person of color, I know that racial stereotypes make a judge and jury less likely to give me the benefit of the doubt than my white peers. I also know that the legal system will attempt to intimidate me into taking a plea bargain for a crime I didn’t commit. These problems are compounded if I’m poor, don’t know my rights, or can’t obtain competent defense. Stand your ground laws help protect me from a system that chews up and spits out people who look like me.

Contrary to the misinformation put out by Minnesota’s leading gun control group, stand your ground does NOT allow you to shoot people for wearing a hoodie, it does not allow people to “shoot first,” and it does not allow people to shoot anytime they feel subjectively threatened. In fact, it’s hard to repeat those statements with a straight face if one has even a passing familiarity with Minnesota’s byzantine web of self-defense laws (although they helpfully make the point that our laws need simplification and reform so laypeople can understand them).

Stand your ground would not change the requirement to act reasonably.

Just like under current precedent, in order to present a valid claim of self-defense, a person must have BOTH an “actual and honest belief that he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm,” AND “the existence of reasonable grounds for that belief.” (State of Minnesota v. Baker 1968)

“The lack of a duty to retreat does not abrogate the obligation to act reasonably when using force in self defense. Therefore, in all situations in which a party claims self-defense, even absent a duty to retreat, the key inquiry will still be into the reasonableness of the use of force and the level of force under the specific circumstances of each case.” (State of Minnesota v. Glowacki 2001)

Despite overblown claims of racism, stand your ground is not in itself a racist law — mostly because there’s nothing to enforce. Instead, it is a DEFENSE that is invoked to protect the rights of an individual in court. It helps people of color defend themselves successfully from a predatory legal system that is stacked against them at every level, from arrest to sentencing.

According to data collected by the Tampa Bay Times, stand your ground provisions are more likely to be used to successfully defend black people than white people. Black people are 16.8% of Florida’s population, but make up 33% of SYG acquittals, while white people are 77.7% of the population, but account for only 56% of acquittals (note that the homicide rates for blacks did not increase, so this discrepancy is NOT due to the myth of suspicious whites shooting first. Instead, it means more blacks are avoiding unjust prosecution).

As a person of color who is also a gun owner, I know that HF238 and HF188 would help me, and people who look like me, to protect ourselves. I know similar provisions are common in other states (the majority of states have some version of stand your ground; over ten have permit-less carry), and that the hysteria about these laws is fueled by fear rather than rational analysis.

I also know that our justice system is plagued with racial inequality at every level. Stand your ground doesn’t change that, as it’s outside the scope of one bill to solve such pervasive problems. However, it does help defendants of color avoid unjust persecution, and that’s a step in the right direction.

About Sarah Cade:

Sarah Cade is a competitive pistol shooter and a volunteer Team Leader for the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus.

Read more:
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook


Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: